Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency range


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Frequency range

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a near-tautological dictionary definition, and a synthesis of original research unifying the concept "frequency range" from a grab bag of fields. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete If you like this one, you'll love Temperature range. Simply adding "range" after some physical dimension doesn't make it notable topic.  Yakushima (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominated that one, too. Thanks. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This has much-used alternate titles which redirect to it such as waveband. This concept is notable, especially in dividing up the electromagnetic spectrum, as here.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - like above - Skysmith (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator. Not every adjective-noun pair is a fit subject for an encyclopedia article; "freqeuncy range" has nothing meaningful to say apart from the context of *which* freqeuncies you're talking about. And the moment you talk about two unrelated fields, you slip into WP:OR by synthesizing observations on the usage of the conept unsupported by sources. --Wtshymanski (talk)
 * If that is the problem, it would be possible to split the sections about those unrelated fields to separate articles. An article would still be useful, as there are some things common to all of these, which would not be suitable for a disambiguation page. Peter E. James (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep many readers would want to be able to compare the likes of UHF to VHF that appear on some TV bandwiths. Nergaal (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But what does that mean? And that comparison doesn't appear in this article anyway, and VHF and UHF television have the same bandwidth although they use different...frequency ranges...there, I said it. Can you tell me what this article is supposed to be about? --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Frequency range has a technical meaning, referring to the frequencies a device can operate on, without any quality statement. Irrespectively, I think there is a lot to say about frequency ranges, be it electronic elements or equipment, acoustic devices including the human ear, etc. @Nergaal: What you are looking for is frequency bandwidth, which has a precise technical definition (the cut-off points are at half of the nominal/maximum power), and is much better summarized in Radio spectrum. Nageh (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For example? What would you say about "frequency range" that isn't just a dictionary definition, if you take out the usages of the phrase that are specific? The phrase has a meaning, but that doesn't make it a topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll pass the question back. Where (in which article) do you think the technical meaning should be mentioned? Nageh (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But I don't want this article to exist. I don't know what a free-standing article "frequency range" would talk about aside from specific examples of "frequency range of musical instruments, frequency range of menstrual cycles, frequency range of World War I radio direction finding, frequency range of catastrophic flooding events in the Nelson River basin,", etc. - it's a bit like having an article called Length range (Jimbo help us, I wonder if that turns blue...) What do you mean by a "technical meaning" ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! You have catastrophically failed in convincing me, and I was already on the brink! (I have posted the technical meaning above. Many electronic components are advertised with their frequency range, but that doesn't express anything about their usefulness for the range of frequencies they can operate on; for that, there is the definition of bandwidth or 3db point.) Nageh (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. You offer a (bad) dictionary definition, how does this make an article? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2011 (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.