Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/56 kbit/s modem


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to Modem. (non-admin closure) -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  07:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

56 kbit/s modem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced, thus fails WP:GNG. If deleted, a disambiguation page should be created between Point4 and Motorola 56000 per the hatnote. Laun chba  ller  21:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability requires that references on a topic exist, not that they are currently cited in an article. There are very many independent reliable sources with significant coverage on 56 kbps modems. The AfD guidelines' WP:BEFORE section lists steps to carry out before nominating an article for deletion, including "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Agyle (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as needs sourcing but certainly not deleting. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  21:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Modem - I do believe stuff like this is encyclopedic and worth covering but at the same time I don't think we need so many different articles on what all relates to one thing and I suppose it's better to "have it under one roof", than to have each and every related article unsourced and possibly facing it's fate here. -


 * (TL;DR - One big article's better than loads unsourced) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  16:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How does that require a nutshell comment? Even with it, the whole thing is shorter than 's comment! (I'd say a general rule of thumb is put one if your comment goes into the second paragraph without it.-- Laun  chba  ller  19:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because I tend to waffle on and so having the tldr makes it easier for anyone not wanting to read a longish paragraph... Nothing wrong with making everyone's life easier.. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  19:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge with modem. Having an article for each speed of modem is ludicrous. Do we need an article on 28.8 or 33.6 or 53? CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In a sense, no article is "needed", but being needed isn't normally one of the factors for Merging; the scope of this article extends beyond that of modem, and as it currently stands seems appropriate for a standalone article. Splits and mergers are often based on the depth of coverage of an article, which in turn are often based on what someone feels like writing, more than some objective need for an article. It's not like a Wikipedia boss can order underlings to write a 33.6k modem article. :-) Agyle (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge with modem. Most of the design data/standards and characteristics are already in the modem article, and any additional historical aspect/content can be added in. It's also a natural progression, and evolve-ment from 1200baud numbers (devices) to 56k using more advanced signal multiplexing each time. Merge. scope_creep talk  01:15  18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Being unreferenced does not equate to being non-notable.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While obviously the topic is notable enough for keep !vote, I'd rather go for merge to modem: 56K are not particularily special, and encyclopedic coverage within a topic of modems in general would simply be more practical. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the longstanding incompatible standards in the marketplace distinguish this speed from some others. But whether or not that's true, 56k modems are already covered in Modem, and merging this into that article would make the coverage far longer and more detailed than comparable subtopics, which is the primary rationale for Content forking into standalone articles. Agyle (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, most content is already there, so this merge is unlikely to change modem article too much. I would not oppose keep or merge resolution for this AfD, so that more detailed merge discussion could take place and work out possible issues without constrains of unambiguous AfD resolution. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Modem. It's a modem.  That's about all that needs to be said.  Creating articles for individual and arbitrary speed computer hardware is indiscriminate.  Merge is OK, but I don't think it's necessary.  I sincerely hope that we don't see individual articles on 60 MHz Pentiums, 66 MHz Pentiums, 75 MHz Pentiums, etc.  A single, encyclopedic article that describes the topic in-depth is much, much better a series of unnecessary content forks that dedicate entirely way too much attention to minutiae.  Given the massive popularity of the Pentium architecture, I probably could create referenced articles on each individual chip.  But that doesn't mean that I should. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into a new article This subject is obviously notable, as it has been said before, so this article shouldn't be deleted, but I think the content of the modem pages should be better-organized. You could make a new article called "Dial-up modem" with content from this page and from the modem page, and make the 56k modem page redirect to dial-up modem. Then, the content would be more organized: The modem page would be about modems in general, while the dial-up modem page would be devoted to dial-up modems. Currently, most of the modem page is about dial-up modems, which is messy. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not reorganize the modem article instead? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.