Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data Terminal Ready
- 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 16:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Data Terminal Ready (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One pin of the RS 232 interface. Like Ring Indicator, also not a subject for a stand-alone article because this article must give so much context to make any sense. Removing the how-to essay and modem trivia and duplicated content leaves nothing. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems to have too much information to be merged, would probably make the RS232 page too long UltraMagnusspeak 14:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for same reason given by User:UltraMagnus Reswobslc (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the concern about bloating the RS-232 article, but it already contains a lot of material that can be culled, e.g. RS232#Seldom used features (a seven-row table, plus 535 words in 12 paragraphs, entirely unreferenced) can be deleted or moved to a separate article, the second paragarph of RS232#Cables is mostly chat, some stuff about de facto behavior of modems belongs in the Modem article. I've re-built the RS-232#Pinouts table so it has a tiny summary of each signal, which means that the RS-232#Signals section can now be expanded without affecting the pinout table. - Pointillist (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, merging essential information back into RS-232. Sorry, Reswobslc, but there is too much detail here—all of it unreferenced. A subset should be merged back into the RS-232 article. - Pointillist (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree - so long as you think Hayes command set refers to a Wikipedia article and not an actual specification, the notion that it's "unreferenced" is a little bit inaccurate. The fact that Hayes doesn't make their original spec a free download on the Web that can be linked to, does not invalidate it as a source. Reswobslc (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is quite simple: you can't cite Wikipedia as a source. The concatenation stuff was unnecessary in that context anyway, so I have moved it to the AT command article. "Hayes original spec" is irrelevant: the &D command didn't exist in 1977 and there are perfectly good public sources for the AT command set as it is used today, e.g. the V.250 standard and the KDE documentation (which is licensed under GFDL). In fact I've added five references to the section, but I still think it is detail that belongs in a Wikibook, not an encyclopedia article. - Pointillist (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can however use the Hayes command set itself as a source, even if you have no link to it. Mind you, that is a primary source, which can be used, but only in some cases. For the specific balancing act here, see Wikipedia:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves and WP:PRIMARY. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is quite simple: you can't cite Wikipedia as a source. The concatenation stuff was unnecessary in that context anyway, so I have moved it to the AT command article. "Hayes original spec" is irrelevant: the &D command didn't exist in 1977 and there are perfectly good public sources for the AT command set as it is used today, e.g. the V.250 standard and the KDE documentation (which is licensed under GFDL). In fact I've added five references to the section, but I still think it is detail that belongs in a Wikibook, not an encyclopedia article. - Pointillist (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other serial comms articles need a re-vamp, too. Flow control has only one reference, Software flow control likewise. In the days when 1200bps modems and Diablo 630s were hot (early 1980s) every programmer had shelves full of Sybex and Osborne reference books covering this stuff. It must be possible to cite better sources than the current ones! - Pointillist (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree - so long as you think Hayes command set refers to a Wikipedia article and not an actual specification, the notion that it's "unreferenced" is a little bit inaccurate. The fact that Hayes doesn't make their original spec a free download on the Web that can be linked to, does not invalidate it as a source. Reswobslc (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I now see the main discussion is taking place at the Ring Indicator AfD, so I'll join in there. - Pointillist (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: article about a sufficiently important and complex subject that meets both notability and verifiability criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator: This level of detail should be moved to a Wikibook, since it approaches a how-to discussion inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect some content into RS232. Some of this belongs in Wikihow or elsewhere, but for sure some content is not about DTR. Bongomatic 03:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.