Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essential bandwidth


 * 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 Bandwidth (signal processing). Clear consensus to redirect/merge somewhere, but less clear on where. I'm going with the one mentioned more often, but feel free to hash out the exact target on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Essential bandwidth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This "definition" article was just de-orphaned, which is how it came to my attention. It is a one-line poor and imprecise definition of a little-used concept, not really worthy of an article even if we want to mention the concept in another article. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Spectral_density, and drop the definition in there (I hesitate to call this a 'merge'). It's a simple concept without much to say about it (AFAIK) and should be well served with a short mention within the larger topic. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with merge and redirect but I think Bandwidth (signal processing) would be a better target, at least if we are just having this simple definition. Merging to spectral density I feel would require the addition of some of the underlying mathematics.  I can't agree with Dicklyon that this is "little used"; gbooks comes up with numerous textbooks that seem to think this is an important concept,  SpinningSpark 15:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. I too found GBooks and Gscholar references numerous enough to convince me this is a term worth mentioning somewhere in our articles. I tend to agree this is a definition of bandwidth dependent on energy, rather than about energy itself, hence Bandwidth (signal processing) may be the referred target. I think this is probably a culture thing. Those who come from an electronics/filtering background naturally concentrate on signal envelope, so characterizing the bandwidth by the cutoff frequency makes the most sense. Others who look at signals as stochastic processes think a probabilistic confidence interval and essential bandwidth are the natural measures. -- 17:44, 17 August 2018 (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.