Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-loss calculation

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 Erlang (unit). (non-admin closure) f e minist 12:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High-loss calculation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded per WP:NODEADLINES, but if an article goes EIGHT YEARS without a single edit, I think it at least needs attention. This seems to be nothing more than a mere dicdef, and I was unable to find any sources to build it up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly more than a dicdef. I have added to WP:TELECOM and introduced additional incoming links. Threat of deletion should not be used as a means to get improvements made to articles. ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Kvng -- If threat of deletion is not enough, then adding a tag or category, or leaving a tag in place, is unlikely to help this list, some members of which go back to 2006:
Needs references: 205,958
Needs references (BLP): 2,695
Needs more references: 314,990
Needs more references (BLP): 49,779
Needs in-text citations: 88,878
Needs reliable references: 63,898
Has unsourced quotes: 1,138
Has unsourced statements: 325,912

We need to deal with these items one-by-one, as TenPoundHammer has done. The alternative is to postulate that all of them have a valid reference somewhere on the web, and delete all million reference tags. Rhadow (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 5 million articles on WP so your numbers are not so shocking in that context. These fix-it-now-or-delete-it ultimatums are simply not in line with deletion policy. If you disagree, we can continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:DEL7 and WP:DEL14 (in particular as a violation of WP:NOT#OR). I preformed a search on regular Google, Google Scholar, and a few other academic databases. I see nothing that is verifiable in this entry, meaning that it fails our most core content policy, WP:V, which if failed after an exhaustive search is reason for deletion. The fact that this also appears to be pure original research also makes it eligible for deletion as a violation of WP:NOT. These are both valid reasons for deletion under deletion policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference to a reputable offline source (unfortunately one not available on Google Books but frequently referenced in other books) so yours is not a strong argument. Although I have not found any suitable sources to add, my online research indicates this is not a hoax or neologism or any such. How about if I merge this article into Erlang (unit)? It is directly related and I believe to would be helpful for readers there to know that the Erlang formulas have limitations. ~Kvng (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is a strong argument since its been sitting unreferenced for years and no one has managed to bring forth sources to meet WP:V (even after credible searches, which I did perform). This is not a question of notability, but a question of verifiability, which is also a valid deletion rationale (DEL7). There is nothing to merge because all of the content is unsourced so would be inappropriate in any article. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material that has been challenged or expected to be challenged needs to be cited. So do you expect this to be challenged or are you challenging everything that is in this article? If it were not in a stand-alone article (i.e. merged into Erlang (unit)), would you be insisting that it be removed from there immediately or would {{cn}} tagging it be sufficient? ~Kvng (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable from WP:V. No one has shown that any of the material currently in the article is verifiable, even in offline sources. This isn't about there being one reference to one potential offline source: we have no idea what is in it, and no one claims to. It might contradict everything in this article for all we know. Nothing in this article has been verified, which also makes it pure OR. Both of those are valid deletion reasons. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are inappropriately mixing verifiable with verified. We don't require material in the encyclopedia to be verified we just require some level of assurance that it is verifiable. Our level of assurance has to be high - approaching or meeting verified - for controversial information such as WP:BPL. Some uncontroversial, widely known information does not require citations because it can be verified by a consensus of editors. For more obscure information such as we're dealing with here, verifiability is adequately satisfied with an off-line reference that someone can go to a library and sort out. If this doesn't cut it for you for this topic, that's fine, we can disagree. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I agree with Kvng that a low-profile offline ref would be sufficient to warrant inclusion in a parent article (i.e. a merge). But where is that ref? The only ref I see in the article or its history is a dead link to [1] with the term "personal communication" (which does not ring like a published source). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect @Tigraan and Kvng:, looking over this again, I would be fine with a redirect here, no merge, but allowing the content to be kept in the history for a potential merge if the online source can actually be produced. There's nothing harmful in the page history, so a redirect would follow both WP:PRESERVE and WP:V. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't had a chance to re-review and answer questions about this. It looks like I may have gotten my wires crossed with another AfD. I am comfortable with a redirect for now and would salvage and merge anything useful as my time allows. ~Kvng (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirec and possibly merge to Erlang (unit), seems a minor subtopic of that topic area. Sandstein 10:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.