Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copper access node

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 redirect to Digital subscriber line access multiplexer. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copper access node

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable topic. The term "copper access node" does not appear once in google books results or in google news results leading me to believe that it is a very very niche technical term, or is something that was completely made up by the author. The only reference in the article does not include the term at all. No indication whatsoever of notability Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DSLAM. Copper access node is a term which nobody uses. Seems to be some kind of OR to make an equivalent to "fibre access node". Its basically a made up term which is technically not incorrect but simply not used in RS (or by almost anybody at all). As result the article hasn't any content at all and there are zero RS which use this term out there. The correct term used to describe this concept is Digital subscriber line access multiplexer as the article itself says so. Therefore the article should be redirected to the correct article. Dead Mary (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Fair enough for me. --46.1.232.234 (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DSLAM - there are mentions around, for instance here or there, so the term exists. Now, it seems to be the same as DSLAM although I would not bet on that based on what I have read. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:59, 26 October 2016 (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.