Talk:CDMA spectral efficiency

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Splitting and deletion of the article suggested

To my understanding this article is about how to improve system spectral efficiency specifically in IS95 and CDMA2000 systems.

May I ask if this article is published somewhere else, or if you intend to publish it somewhere else? It does not have the structure of an encyclopedic article, but looks like a text taken from a handbook for a specific testing equipment. Articles that are practical how-to-manuals are typically deleted from Wikipedia according to WP:What Wikipedia is not.

Several terms are not defined, especially in the illustration, for example and TIA/EIA-98-E, c.s0002-a and Programming mnemonics. However, some of the unexplained terms and article headings are interesting and might deserve their own articles, where proper definitions should be given.

Every Wikipedia article should be introduced by a definition, which is missing in this article. But the title of this article (CDMA Spectral Efficiency) is from what I can understand identical to system spectral efficiency) which already is defined in that article. So I don't think the topic should have its own article. But parts of this article might be kept and inserted into other existing articles, for example:

Radio resource management (Also about how to increase the system spectral efficiency, but not only for CDMA2000 and IS95).
CDMA2000
IS95
Spectral efficiency

The text needs more wiki links to other related articles. Mange01 (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree wholeheartedly. Not only is the title wrong (CDMA spectral efficiency), it doesn't even talk about spectral efficiency as to how efficient is it. It should also not be constrained to CDMA2000, but should also include the more relevant WCDMA technologies. Also statements like: "CDMA is not expected to be used in 4G systems, and is not used in pre-4G systems such as LTE and WiMAX, but is about to be supplemented by more spectral efficient frequency-domain equalization (FDE) techniques such as OFDMA." are factually wrong. FDE is a technique to improve radio reception in certain situations and as such are not a definition of OFDMA. In fact modern WCDMA systems use FDE to improve reception by canceling own user interference. So Either change the title to something like CDMA2000 efficiency improvement techniques or remove the whole article Nasula (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting will not help

You are absolutely right, this article is on how to improve system spectral efficiency specifically in IS95 and CDMA2000 systems. This article is an short introduction to spectral efficiency and then the ways to improve the spectral efficiency in CDMA generations. The major focus is on ways to improve it. So this article has different techniques mentioned. So splitting will not actually help in any way and this article would loose its core meaning.

This matter is taken from the international paper which i had submitted as my project and so may lack the wiki style language and structure would be true. Since it is my first article on wikipedia, i might lack in introducing few things like definitions, links, etc., but i will try to improve it first hand. This article is not on how-to-manuals but the techniques available in the telecommunication market at CDMA forefront.

This article is only based on CDMA spectral efficiency techniques and so its parts cannot be broken down and pasted in some other articles. And the articles like CDMA2000, IS95 cannot include a rare topic of efficiency of network. The topic of my article is new, rare and a near future issue/problem at an international level due to subscribers' base increasing many fold.

Still if someone feels of splitting it then they can provide me a exact detail of which section should be splitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardikvasa (talk • contribs) 04:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created several red links, i.e. links to non-existing articles, for every unexplained term that is mentioned in the article. Please change the links if you suggest other new articles. I think if several of these articles are created, this would be a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Then it might be possible to keep this article without splitting and deleting it. But now it is out of context.

Can the article be renamed CDMA radio resource management?

So your research paper is submitted but not yet published? Until it is published, the Wikipedia article can not mention any new results you present in your article. Otherwize it is original research. Only verifiable published facts should be included.

If the overlap is large between Wikipedia and your paper before it is published, the paper reviewer might notice that ask you for an explanation.

The article should have an international perspectice and also include 3GPP/UMTS/WCDMA. But I suppose it is quite similar. Mange01 (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]