Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impedance mismatch


 * 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 Impedance matching. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 09:08Z

Impedance mismatch

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This whole article seems like a bad joke, the tone is simply ridiculous, the category is wrong, it's unreferenced, the subject is never-heard before (and if, indeed, there's a "human impedance mismatch", the style of the article is utterly inadequate), and all in all it looks like one of those "trap articles" thrown in to discredit wikipedia's reliability. EpiVictor 13:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is certainly a legitimate electrical engineering term, and I think the use of it as a metaphor for the "object-relational impedance mismatch" is pretty well established.  Radical pruning or even reversion to this version may be appropriate, but not deletion.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  00:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a legitimate electrical engineering term, but this article is not about that term. That's already covered in impedance matching.  This is a dictionary entry with dubious definitions. — Omegatron 05:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever is salvageable into Impedance matching, and if nothing should be merged, just plain redirect to Impedance matching. This is conceivably a plausible search term, and the underlying physical theory and applications are well explained in the article on Impedance matching. 131.111.8.104 01:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - But clean-up and add references.-- Bryson { Talk } { Edits } 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as whatever scientific information can be found scattered in the article seems to already exist (and in a better form, too) in Impedance matching. Plus, is that term actually used in sociology/psychology or is it just someone's original research/joke/nihilartikel? EpiVictor 10:20, 6 April 2007 (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.