Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primary cell terminology


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Primary cell terminology

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article claims, based on a reference written in 1911, that there is a problem with confusing terminology. In my view, this article is going to create more confusion than it prevents. It has no useful content for the modern reader. The bit about the conventional direction of current is misleading, since nowadays the positive current convention is almost universal.

I thought initially that I would propose a merger with Primary cell, just to avoid destroying any information since I'm an inclusionist at heart, but on reflection I can't find anything of value in this article. The only bit of information that's helpful is the last sentence, but that is repeated in the Primary cell article anyway. After that, all we need to say is that the cathode is marked as (+) and the anode as (-). Maybe somebody could make use of the 1911 book in an article about the history of electrochemistry, but it shouldn't be presented as current information. Heron (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is still opportunity for confusion. As you say, "the cathode is marked as (+) and the anode as (-)" but, in an electrolytic cell, the opposite is the case. Biscuittin (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS nothing has changed since 1911 so the information is not outdated. However, I am happy to merge it with Primary cell if you prefer. Biscuittin (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a summary of Primary cell terminology to Primary cell and I withdraw my objection to deletion. However, I see that Primary cell terminology has been nominated (not by me) to be copied to Wikiversity so please do not delete it until this has been done. Biscuittin (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful replies. I'm happy with your addition to Primary cell, and I shall wait to see what happens with the transfer to Wikiversity before deleting Primary cell terminology. I still don't see what use the article will be to them, but that's their problem. --Heron (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to primary cell, maybe it shouldn;t have an article in its own right but it should have something. HJMitchell    You rang?  14:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete One book from 1911 does not constitute "multiple reliable and independent sources." Now adequately covered in Primary cell. Edison (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we ignore the request to copy to Wikiversity and delete anyway, for two reasons:
 * 1) The article is misleading, as the alleged 'confusion' results from archaic terminology that is no longer used
 * 2) The request was made by an anon IP that has no history of replying to questions, so there is little chance of getting the requester to explain his or her reasoning, and therefore the request is unlikely to be acted upon. --Heron (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2009 (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.