Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (voltage)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &#x222F; WBG converse 16:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude (voltage)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Half of the stuff is unsourced and another quarter unreliably sourced. The article fails WP:LISTN.Synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. &#x222F; WBG converse 06:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously.  For example, see RfC, AfD.  Andrew D. (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment "Half of the stuff is unsourced" - well, no. There are 36 referenced entries and only 6 that are not.  One of those is "planck voltage - which is the subject of an article to which we link - it's a physical constant, not something that needs to be referenced. Another is a tautology - the voltage of 15kV railway electrics is...by definition...15kV, and again we link to the article.  That leaves just four missing references.  Pretty good by Wikipedia standards. SteveBaker (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know where the 600 V figure for the electric eel came from, but it's probably close to accurate (e.g., this paper mentions large eels generating EMFs around 500 V). 3.3-volt CMOS is a standard thing discussed at, e.g., logic family. The breakdown voltage for an electric arc is only approximately linear with gap width, but we could fix that entry up easily enough. Millivolt values for K-type thermocouples at ambient temperatures look about right. So, yeah, sourcing isn't a real issue here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Some of these "orders of magnitude" pages are a bit pointless, but this voltage one gives a real feel for what the range of orders mean in the real world. The argument if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one seems to be admitting that reliable sources can be found, but tries to discount them because Wikipedia is not a textbook.  NOTTEXTBOOK does not say that.  It says that articles should not be written like a "how-to".  This page is far from a how-to.  It doesn't tell the reader how to do anything.  WP:RS, under WP:SOURCETYPES, list textbooks under "usually the most reliable sources".  Absolutely text books add to the notability of this page.  So here's a textbook giving such a list and I'm tempted to point the nominator at another textbook for the proper use of grammar. SpinningSpark 23:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not state any about the unreliability of textbooks. The point is that Irwing's book donates just a single line to the entire thing, that is featured as a diagram and that line emphasises on the vastness of the magnitude.Nothing more, nothing less. It's not an exception either that voltage is some special physical quantity that can have such extreme range. The vastness is applicable for all most all physical quantities. At the end of the day, GNG requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, which is absent. &#x222F; WBG converse 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * An article about the broader theme can be created and all of these category articles merged/redirected into but that will have it's own issues. &#x222F; WBG converse 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "this voltage one gives a real feel for what the range of orders mean in the real world". That's blatant WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "I'm tempted to point the nominator at another textbook for the proper use of grammar." I'm tempted to point you towards WP:CIVILITY. Narky Blert (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep As indicated above, sourcing isn't a problem. Reliable sources include listings of voltages for disparate things, so we're not doing anything conceptually novel by assembling such a list ourselves. We can keep the list from growing too outsized or indiscriminate by following an inclusion criterion of the "all items must be blue-linked" form. I don't see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK being a real concern here, either. This article is not written as textbookish prose, "with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples". (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK doesn't apply just because a thing exists in some textbooks; that would rule out our articles including figures and bibliographies, after all.) So, weighing the concerns, I can't see anything that requires deletion, just ordinary editing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your last argument is a strawman. And, sourcing per LISTN is indeed a problem. Please provide multiple examples of sources that discuss such a list, significantly. &#x222F; WBG converse 19:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You can call it a strawman if you like; I honestly think it's a valid comparison, albeit slightly more extreme than the case currently under discussion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, w umbolo   ^^^  07:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is notable and mentions a lot of items, the majority of which are referenced. — Eli355 ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The information is useful and generally well sourced and easily meets the requirements of WP:LISTN, which says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." There is nothing in LISTN that says textbooks don't count, and I expect there are similar tables in other encyclopedias. The stuff that isn't referenced is hardly controversial and can be challenged if need be. At worst the content could be merged back into the Volt article.--agr (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.