Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LED circuit


 * 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 light-emitting diode. There isn't anything in this article that is not already said in Ohm's law or its parent article, so nothing to merge. I took a look at the references provided, but they only reinforce the view that whenever LED circuits are mentioned in the literature they have no unique properties other than those of the LED load. In the end, I conclude that an LED circuit is just a electrical circuit with a light-emitting diode as a load. That's all - nothing to deserve its own article. In this debate a lot of people have wrongly conflated the notability of LEDs themselves (which are of course notable) with that of an electrical circuit which simply has one. Lastly, since the nominator offers a reasonable argument for deletion and equally reasonable responses to some comments, "keep" comments that are solely based on the nominator's role as SPA have been disregarded. Pegasus &laquo;C&brvbar;T&raquo; 02:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

LED circuit

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an application of ohms law, not a notable or unusual circuit in any way. Although included in many cheat sheets and quick references it is not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. I noted this and tagged the page for deletion but the tag was removed without any justification. A blitter (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) — A blitter (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: Nom's only contributions are putting this article up for AfD, which is quite suspicious. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the nominator is a vandal or sockpuppet, we must examine the article itself to see if it's delete-worthy. Vandals can be correct, sometimes. And the nominator does have reasonable objections against this article being kept. Pegasus &laquo;C&brvbar;T&raquo; 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Of course. But what is the reason you've said this?  I didn't say that the nom. wasn't credible, or that the nom did this in bad faith.  I did say that the nom's only contributions were to this AfD, which is obviously called a SPA, not to mention that it is suspicious that a "new user" would make his or her first contributions by way of nominating a page for deletion.  - Rjd0060 15:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have edited several articles over the years and had seen this several months prior, I was hoping someone would bring it up for deletion but they didnt. I needed a username to AfD the article so I created one, I'll probably come back in a few years time and create new username to do the same again.A blitter 04:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at the WP:SPA article, it even says that single purpose accounts can be perfectly innocent. You do not appear to be assuming good faith. eaolson 05:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Are you suggesting that LED circuit's are not notable? Sorry, but they are, and this article is well written, although a few sources wouldn't hurt. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, suspicious AfD seeing as it's user's only edit... Notable concept, needs references. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. As said before, this article is notable.  Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: How exactly is the circuit that provides current to an LED notable? The LED and Ohms Law articles cover all the notable aspects and the combination of the two is trivial.A blitter (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is notable because other thick books find it sufficiently notable to discuss it in detail. In wikipedia, the only way to figure out notability is to look for material published by experts in the field. If experts talk about it, opinions of wikipedians are irrelevant. (If experts don't talk about it, opinions of wikipedians are even more irrelevant :-) Mukadderat (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it warrants inclusion if there are references to experts either presenting or discussing this circuit. But this is a trivial example of ohms law, it does not even mention the transfer characteristics of the diode. An expert would not refer to an "LED circuit" simply because LEDs are driven in a multiude of ways, compare this to an "RC circuit" which is considered a fundamental electrical system and can be referenced in industry standard articles (such as the national semiconductor applications handbook). Further the article on the Zener diode has an example biasing of the diode rather than having it as a seperate "Zener diode circuit".A blitter (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LED light fast speedy keep. It took me about 45 seconds to add two references via google books which discuss the LED circuit even in more detail than this article. Mukadderat (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Page 525 in the "Applied Electonics" book you referenced (sorry I dont know how to do that clever link) uses "Transistor circuit" in exactly the same context, this is not the "Transistor circuit" (because there is no definitive "Transistor circuit") but simply a circuit that uses a transistor.A blitter (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above comments -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 02:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I closed this as a "speedy keep" earlier but after objections on my talk page, I've reverted my closure. Pegasus &laquo;C&brvbar;T&raquo; 05:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, maybe merge to LED. I'm not surprised there are a couple of examples in textbooks labeled "LED circuit", since it's the easiest way to refer to a simple circuit where the item of interest is an LED. But the article hasn't supported it's claim that there is a specific circuit or class of circuits called "LED circuits." This article could just as easily be titled "Electrical circuit with an LED in it". The op-amp article has the simplest possible amplifier circuit in it, and we don't have a separate article for that. eaolson (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - bad faith AfD. Make some contributions before you ask for others to be deleted. Article looks noteable, as per Mukadderat. --Arcanios (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. As Pegasus has pointed out, the nominator has made some valid points, which need to be addressed. Your baseless accusation does not assume good faith. Everyone had a first edit somewhere. eaolson 15:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to the LED article. Trivial application of Ohm's law. There is no special concept of an "LED circuit" any more than "doorbell circuit," "lightbulb circuit," "buzzer circuit," "electromagnet circuit," "can opener circuit," or "resistor circuit." We could create such a trivial article for every device which uses electricity. Because an LED can be used in a circuit, there will be examples in textbooks of LEDs in circuits. The page is a "how to" article which belongs in a introductory electronics project magazine more than in an encyclopedia. There has been too much attacking of the nominator here, in clear violation of WP:AGF. Edison 15:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Trainwreck the AFD and reopen a week later - The nominator's rationale is sufficient, but there is no consensus here whatsoever to determine deletion OR inclusion. I say we reopen this AFD after a reflection upon the details of the article.--WaltCip 15:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Trainwreck? So far, it appears there is a consensus here to keep. - Rjd0060 16:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to the LED article, my arguments match those of Edison exactly. -Verdatum 16:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to LED as argued above. There's nothing notable about a LED in a series circuit - the interest and notability comes from the characteristics of the device itself. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to LED. Along with the above, LEDs, well, go in circuits.  There's nothing special there, and it could be fit into the main article very easily.  This isn't anything like an LC circuit, RL circuit, or RCL circuit, which are "special" circuits that deserve special attention. The reason this circuit isn't special is that it doesn't do anything interesting.  It just glows.  That's what LEDs are supposed to do. (please note that I'm completely ignoring any and all rules.) Someguy1221 20:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep we have two refs cited for notability, so this AfD seems baseless. Lots of articles describe basic concepts that may seem trivial to some. The basic principle is widely applied, and included in any modern basic text book on electronics. Notability is based on references, period. Dhaluza (talk) 02:24, 5 December 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.