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

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. And it would be useful to have a discussion on the article talk page about a possible Merge to Torque. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (torque)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

While some similar articles exist, such as Orders of magnitude (acceleration), this list appears to consist of a few random pieces of trivia, with no support that I can find for passing WP:NLIST. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Lists. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing but trivia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Acknowledging WP:Otherstuffexists, and also the paucity of information here compared with much of that other stuff, I am undecided so far about how to opine. I am 51:49 in favour of retention. It is properly sourced, and the topic itself is notable. Unless I reverse my opinion, please count this as a keep !vote when closing. Compared to the similar articles this is but a stub. I am not sure that is invalid 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we should have orders of magnitude articles for commonly measured quantities. Probably the article could be merged to torque at this point of its measly dimensions. I think it will take less than 1 mNm of torque to press a delete button on the keyboard. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't believe I can objectively cast a vote (being the original creator), but I'll say that (at its start) Orders of magnitude (force) was similar in scale. Orders of magnitude (numbers) was yet smaller/worse formatted by quite a margin. If any of this is in breach of Wiki etiquette, please let me know. Qaziquza (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qaziquza I believe we should interpret that as a !vote to keep. Being the creating editor does not preclude you from offering your formal !vote. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick replies: first of all, my understanding is that yes, you are allowed to vote (and you're doing so in a much more civil way than some article creators I've known :P, don't take this discussion as trying to push you away from contributing or anything); second, I would like to point out that in addition to WP:OSE mentioned above, standards have changed a bit since, oh... 2003. LittlePuppers (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quite acceptable as a stub with potential for expansion - with trout to heavy-handed AfCing. Ingratis (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Torque. This would be an ok section/paragraph in prose form to provide a sense of what a handful of torque magnitudes correspond to in the everyday experiences of people. It provides some context to an otherwise abstract measure. I don't think should remain as a standalone stub as currently composed. It could be recomposed to something like "List of example torque measurements", but the "magnitudes" isn't as relevant as the examples of measurement to real-world examples. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Initally I rejected the draft version as not being suitable for an article. I then later accepted after several discussions. Many others found it a wrongful rejection and therefore a page which should be listed as an article. Count this a !vote to keep.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:58, 26 September 2023 (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.