Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Load


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 03:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Electronic Load
This article contains barely no information about the topic except a link to a company's website. Same for the Chinese version, and it was listed to vote for deletion as well. -- Tomchiukc 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) 
 * Delete per nom. Neutral. Dicdef at the moment, and no real potential for expansion, other than along the lines of "Electronic loads are also made by Agilent, Sorensen, Kikusui, etc etc etc...".  Tevildo 19:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think the article could possibly be expanded (discussion of how loads are precisely simulated, etc.) It'll never be a front page candidate, but there's room for something here. - Richfife 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this a special topic that requires certain expertise knowledge, or somebody who came across to related webpages can amend the contents to a reasonable amount to keep the article? -- Tomchiukc 10:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the topic itself doesn't require more than a basic knowledge of electronics to explain - is a good introductory article.  I'd offer to do it myself, but it will need diagrams that I'm not, at the moment, in a position to draw... Tevildo 11:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Meets speedy criteria as empty.  Vegaswikian 08:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I removed the spammy link to a single compay -- there should either be links to several companies or none at all. It's apparantly a real electronic device and a real non-neologism or company-specific term. I got 237,000 Goggle hits for the string "Electronic load", granted that the hits probably cover a plethora of usages (but Electronic load as described in the article leads, with the first few results at least). It's very short, but not empty, and certainly expandable. I think the removal of the linkspam makes it OK. Herostratus 21:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Centrx→talk &bull; 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as dicdef. Ifnord 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as a tiny stub with possibility of expansion. Wickethewok 15:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Artw 16:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not repository for lists -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That rationale is wrong. What Wikipedia is not does not say that.  Lists and Lists (stand-alone lists) demonstrate that list articles do exist here.  And this article doesn't contain a list in the first place.  Have you accidentally read some other, completely different, article to the one under discussion here? Uncle G 11:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Dummy load. I will do the merge if a consensus emerges. Gerry Ashton 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is a 1-sentence stub on the subject of electronic loads. The further reading section of the article indicates that there is plenty of scope for expansion on the subject.  The article should of course be renamed to conform with our naming conventions.  Whether an electronic load is the same as a dummy load is something that requires sources.  The electronic loads described in the further reading don't appear to be quite the same things as what is described in dummy load.  However, dummy load is wholly unsourced, and may be wrong.  Keep. Uncle G 11:21, 19 July 2006 (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.