Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of specific absorption rate for devices


 * 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   delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of specific absorption rate for devices
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be a run-around of a deleted article, List of low-radiation smartphones, which was deleted via AfD. The information is somewhat different, but at the end of the day, it's the same original research for an inevitably incomplete list that can never be an encyclopedia article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per the discussions at the old AfD, the closed CfD, and the currently ongoing RfD. The issues of original research identified in those discussions was satisfactorily dealt with - the information presented here is directly attributable to independent sources (SAR tests submitted to the FCC), we're not applying any synthesized analysis to it (like whether the phone is supported by a free OS, which is not relevant), and hasn't been filtered through any criteria ("low-radiation") that we invented. Ivanvector (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your keep !vote here given that you stated in the prior AFD that "SAR tests...are meaningless for comparing one device to another." Which would seem to attack the very concept of this comparison list, but maybe I'm not understanding what you meant there. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was specifically referring to the criteria used to define that list. At the time, the list only included "low-radiation" phones, but that definition isn't defined anywhere (it was invented on that page). Implying that one phone is better or safer than another phone based on SAR measurement is incorrect because the actual radiation absorbed varies wildly depending on the operation of the phone and the operator. The FCC uses SAR tests to certify devices for sale but doesn't do any further analysis; the "low-radiation" list was synthesizing it. There was also wording that suggested a skewed POV favouring a certain Android OS, which I objected to. See what that list looked like. I think we've cleaned all of that up. We did start to talk about what the proper name of this list should be, but the editor who has done most of the work has never participated in any of these discussions despite being invited, so the talk faded out without consensus to do anything. As far as process, the list originated on the SAR page and was moved out, then was built out with synthesized info, then was deleted, so it was logical to recreate the original list within the SAR article. The problems were addressed early when the list was recreated and what we have now is substantially improved over the list that was deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm personally struggling with seeing how this list is substantially different than the previous one. This literally looks like what I'd expect the deleted list to look like had we not deleted it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, the format of this list is basically the same as the deleted one (going by memory). The difference is that this list is neutral and balanced; the old one wasn't, by virtue of only including phones from a certain OS and that met an invented criteria. Ivanvector (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Indeed, the table itself is almost identical, but most of the prose has been deleted. So now it's a table assembled with FCC data and supplemented with mobile device specs. If a reputable secondary source discusses or explains this data for laypeople, then that is something that can be summarized and cited in Mobile phone radiation and health. What you have is a start at something of potential interest and importance to consumers, but it is too technical and lacks any explication, let alone an executive summary. The trouble is, Wikipedia is not the place for publishing this data, and you're just straitjacketing yourself by trying to sanitize it to meet inclusion criteria. Those criteria notwithstanding, Wikipedia is not even the most effective venue for doing what you're trying to do. If you had evidence that a meteor was going to make a 500-megaton impact on Earth, would you publish to Wikipedia? —Ringbang (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 09:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 12:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Wikipedia doesn't just publish tables of raw data. Their needs to be a source explaining the importance/notability of this data in order for it to have its own article.AioftheStorm (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The relevance is explained at Specific absorption rate which this list grew too large for. I had previously tried to summarize in the lede on this page. Also, I moved your comment below the relists for procedural clarity; please move it back if you object. Ivanvector (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are sources describing the radiation from X-ray machines as being significant, but a table of comparison of different X-ray machine radiation levels would still not be notable enough for its own article. That is because, per WP:CSC, every entry in a list has to be notable enough for its own article, and the specific absorption rates of devices are not notable enough for their own articles, thus a list of specific absorption rates does not adhere to notability guidelines.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:55, 13 February 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.