In 13 June 2010 a deletion proposal template was added to the article, with the motivation "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, citation needed." The article may be deleted if the message remains in place for seven days. What is your vote?
Keep the article. Since the prod template, five published sources have been added to the article. A search in Google scholar and Google books shows more scientific publications on the topic exist. However, the article should be improved by footnotes, from those sources as well as from published news magazines. I don't have time to fix that. Mange01 (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete the article. Where did the template go? This article is pure speculation, and just because a very few papers refer speculatively to what might be after 4G and call it 5G, doesn't mean we should have an encyclopedic article. Perhaps a short section on 4G deficiencies would be warranted in the 4G article. It is utterly ridiculous to have a 5G article when the marketing departments of the mobile providers are still arguing with the ITU what is 4G. If the former win, it is possible that LTE/HSPA+/802.16e will be designated as 4G by the ITU and LTEA/802.16m will be the 5G. This article wild speculation and original research, and should be tagged as such as well as tagged for deletion. Jpgs (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh! Now I see it was a full year ago. It still should be deleted. Jpgs (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep the article. Rubbish comment about LTEA ever being classed as 5G; preposterous idea by someone who clearly has no understanding of the business aspects involved. LTE will roll into LTEA in the same generation, eg. perhaps 4.5G, because that is the exact reason for the teleco's to invest in the technology upgrades to their systems now; longevity of use by customers on BOTH types of LTE. Just because the marketing has been allowed to prevail so that 3.9G LTE devices are branded 4G, certainly does not mean the ITU would suddenly define LTEA as the generation afterwards. And anyway, things change in tech world all the time, but it doesn't mean that we delete what is current now under the auspices of what may happen in the future. (+ as per my comments below). Jimthing (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete the article. The article is just pure speculation of the worst kind. It looks like people trying to advertise in a very scorrect way their work. I have never seen something so low level on wikipedia.--3enix (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
And should be deleted. The entire Research section is a random speculative list containing a number of non peer-reviewed writings.
I've never tagged an article for deletion before; how do we do it? Otherwise I'll have to use this as an example to my Mobile Wireless Networking Class next semester of why not to use Wikipedia. Jpgs (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't create this article, but I have tried so save its life... The research section is a summary of peer-reviewed articles for most of the part, and those are definitely not garbage. More research might have been published lately, or are upcoming.
The prognoses section was poor. My intention was to give the article a less optimistic twist than before, and as compared to some of the research papers. The section is based on the same sources as the research section, and is also based on an interview in Swedish with an Ericsson research boss published early this spring. He was very sceptical towards higher bit rates than 1Gbps, and to starting a 5G project now. But the text should have more footnotes. I have now removed some of the text.
We could invite more people to the above voting and/or to improve the article, for example from the WP:TEL project and discussion pages of other cellular telecom articles. Mange01 (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree, this should definitely stay. There are peer reviewed papers and research happening, along with a clear historical context (the 10 year generation cycle) for a next generation after the 4G we are entering now (in the West at least, in Korea they have had 4G-type devices for some time already, hence why they are leading the way on such 5G research!), so there is no reason whatsoever for deletion. This has been through the "ringer" (joke) a number of times. Tidy - yes; removal - no. So please end these repeated ill-informed removal requests. Jimthing (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Good! You should have credit for creating the article.
The first "3G type" device was IS-95, reaching the market sometimes around 1995. The first "4G type" device was WiBro/ mobile-WiMAX around 2005/2006. Should we mention that in the article? If the 10 year rule holds we should see a first "5G type" technology commercialized somewhere in the world around 2015, and a formal international 5G development project should be launched by 2012, after the 4G standard is finalized, and concluded by 2022.Mange01 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted speculations about IEEE/WiFi based 5G
I removed the following unsourced paragraph, but put some of the mentioned technologies under "See also":
Added a new "Investment" section, given recent mainstream news reports regarding a test facility planned in the UK (see report in video form here – from 09:11: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nhbzw). I believe there are other investments happening worldwide that could be added, when known. In fact AFAIR didn't South Korea similarly invest in a new facility, according to a (now removed?) recent version of this 5G page? Though I could be wrong. Jimthing (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)