317:
This is a solid technique and article about it. It appears encyclopedic. At least one author is well-known. The question reduces to "Does it meet WP:N?" There are sources. Some are SPS, some not. Even though some of these SPS author publications are going out through erudite channels like the ACM
234:
been implemented and is available for all to use and report upon (and has been picked up by early adopters). And I just came across a nice little remark that CoDel has been integrated into the Linux kernel mainline already, so if
164:
195:
Article on proposed programming technique not yet in use and therefore non-notable. The last sentence is the give-away. (And that the article on it has, a/c Google scholar, been cited so far by one person only
119:
280:
158:
256:: Aside from the above, the nominator has completely misread that last sentence. It doesn't say that CoDel is not in use (as in not implemented); it says that CoDel
222:
about a programming technique but about a new AQM algorithm. Article cited for it was published in ACM Queue and reprinted in CACM (which is peer reviewed), both
197:
124:
92:
87:
96:
17:
79:
179:
146:
373:
40:
345:
to the article (there are at least three now). These were not hard to find - you just need to search for "CoDel". --
140:
354:
331:
294:
269:
248:
209:
61:
136:
226:
reliable sources for computing science and software engineering (and on the force of those two facts meets
327:
369:
186:
83:
57:
36:
172:
260:
in use and its behavior is being observed in actual use to see if it lives up to expectations. --
227:
323:
290:
265:
244:
152:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
368:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
75:
67:
53:
342:
230:-- reliable sourcing, totally new technology means significant). The algorithm discussed
350:
205:
286:
261:
240:
113:
319:
346:
200:
362:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
322:
to be a RS on this topic?" I'd have to say yes, so keep.
309:
So that's a whole bunch of pruning needed to NASA then!
109:
105:
101:
318:
and MIT. So N now seems to reduce to, "Do we consider
171:
185:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
376:). No further edits should be made to this page.
281:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
8:
279:Note: This debate has been included in the
303:"not yet in use and therefore non-notable."
278:
239:isn't use I don't know what is... --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
283:. 16:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
355:14:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
332:16:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
295:16:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
270:09:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
249:01:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
210:01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
62:00:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
393:
365:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
48:The result was
341:I added two more
297:
284:
384:
367:
343:reliable sources
285:
190:
189:
175:
127:
117:
99:
76:Controlled Delay
68:Controlled Delay
34:
392:
391:
387:
386:
385:
383:
382:
381:
380:
374:deletion review
363:
132:
123:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
390:
388:
379:
378:
358:
357:
335:
334:
311:
310:
306:
305:
299:
298:
275:
274:
273:
272:
193:
192:
129:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
389:
377:
375:
371:
366:
360:
359:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
337:
336:
333:
329:
325:
321:
316:
313:
312:
308:
307:
304:
301:
300:
296:
292:
288:
282:
277:
276:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
254:Extra comment
252:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:: Article is
217:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
202:
198:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
130:
126:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
364:
361:
338:
324:Andy Dingley
314:
302:
257:
253:
236:
231:
223:
219:
215:
199:
194:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
49:
47:
31:
28:
159:free images
54:Mark Arsten
320:Jim Gettys
370:talk page
287:• Gene93k
224:extremely
37:talk page
372:or in a
228:WP:NSOFT
120:View log
39:or in a
262:BenTels
241:BenTels
165:WP refs
153:scholar
93:protect
88:history
137:Google
97:delete
206:talk
180:JSTOR
141:books
125:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
351:talk
347:Kvng
339:Keep
328:talk
315:keep
291:talk
266:talk
245:talk
237:that
216:Keep
173:FENS
147:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:keep
232:has
220:not
201:DGG
187:TWL
122:•
118:– (
353:)
330:)
293:)
268:)
258:is
247:)
208:)
167:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
349:(
326:(
289:(
264:(
243:(
204:(
191:)
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
131:(
128:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.