Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passive integrator 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 Low-pass filter.  Sandstein  07:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Passive integrator circuit

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has been unsourced since 2006. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coin945 (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep : There are some hits on Google Scholar, and I see some coverage in a few articles like this review article, this report (pdf), and this article (unclear quality of the journal). The level of coverage there probably qualifies the subject for WP:GNG, but I couldn't find an RS that gives an overview of the topic. It seems to come up a lot in relation to Rogowski coils and there are probably electrical engineering textbooks that cover this, but I don't really know where to look. I'll ping WikiProject Electrical engineering and WikiProject Physics. — MarkH21talk 05:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Low-pass filter: given the overlap and existing coverage as described by SailingInABathTub below. — MarkH21talk 08:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect, to Low-pass_filter as they are one and the same. The content of this article is largely the same as RC_circuit and does not need to be preserved. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Delete, as suggested above or to RC_circuit or Integrator, either of which might provide less of a surprise to someone using the link. The topic "passive integrator circuit" is too much of a hack to deserve and article of its own and its embodiment will be highly context-dependent, even if the concept exists.  Because it is not really a standalone topic and it does not "belong" under any specific primary topic, deleting it might be appropriate.  —Quondum 16:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 14:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Question - Why is notability in question? Has anyone tried cracking a basic electronics text? I appreciate that the article needs improvement but we don't need to involve AfD for this - WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Posing an indirect question does not establish notability. We have failed to establish that this is notable as a stand-alone topic.  —Quondum 22:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see now that has taken a crack at it. He's right, there will be no problem finding coverage in an electrical engineering textbook. Do you doubt this? ~Kvng (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is not the issue, it is notable. It's just that a passive integrator circuit is exactly the same as, and better known as a low pass filter. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Passive integrator" is not equivalent to "low-pass filter". There are many non-passive low-pass filters, and there are many passive circuits that could be considered to approximate integration.  There are also many passive low-pass filters that do nothing resembling integration.  Even a passive first-order low-pass filter is not considered to be synonymous with "integrator", unless its purpose is thought of as being integration of a signal.  Until you nail the concept, a debate of its notability is not happening.  A much nicer example of a passive integrator is a shunt capacitor being driven by a current source and with voltage as its output, but we would not normally call this a low-pass filter.  "Passive integrator" is a bad name for a fuzzy concept.  Notability needs suitable references, and these have not been forthcoming.  —Quondum 00:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This article just describes a first-order RC low-pass filter. We don’t need two copies of this. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the content. That leaves the question of what to do with the page Passive integrator circuit: redirect (if so, where to is less than obvious) or delete?  —Quondum 00:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see my re-direct vote above. SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you propose to redirect to Low-pass_filter but claim that the content of Passive integrator circuit does not need to be preserved because it already exists at RC_circuit. This seems, on its face, inconsistent.When coverage of a topic is fragmented, one possible solution is to apply WP:SUMMARY style. In this case that would mean retaining Passive integrator circuit and thinning the content elsewhere and using main to reference Passive integrator circuit in those places. ~Kvng (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Said WP:SUMMARY and the links to the relevant subtopics RC_circuit, and RL_circuit can already be found at Low-pass_filter. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , The current organization doesn't strike me as particularly effective or accessible and I don't think that deleting Passive integrator circuit would improve things. ~Kvng (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic is acknowledged to be notable. The issue here is subject matter organization and accessibility. Deletion of Passive integrator circuit does not clearly improve things. As things are improved Passive integrator circuit may turn out to be useful or, minimally, end up as a redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged by whom? Please provide the usual evidence of notability to substantiate your claim.  —Quondum 01:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , by (see discussion above). I'm not in the mood to do busy work in my field of expertise. ~Kvng (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am happy with a redirect, per SailingInABathTub. I just don't think it merits a standalone article based on what we have, even with improvement.  —Quondum 14:06, 18 April 2021 (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.