Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field, power, and root-power quantities

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. Whether to merge or redirect can be decided on the talk page. Or someone can just be bold and implement a suggestion from this discussion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Field, power, and root-power quantities[edit]

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

This stub has less info than the subsection "Root-power (aka field) quantities" (changed from "Field quantities and root-power quantities") in the Decibel article, and so I do not think it is necessary. Also, this article's name is confusing, making it sound like there are 3 different things. Per the Decibel article, there are just two types; one is just a deprecated name for the other. RobP (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the Decibel article: "The term root-power quantity is introduced by ISO Standard 80000-1:2009 as a substitute of field quantity. The term field quantity is deprecated by that standard." RobP (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's an unresolved discussion about the nature of field quantities and root-power quantities. It would be unwise to delete the page on field and root-power quantities until we reach consensus on what they are. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NOTCLEANUP. Work it out on appropriate talk pages and WP:REDIRECT if it is decided this is not needed. ~Kvng (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a meta discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electronics#Power,_field,_root ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing wrong with this as an article topic, especially as it is an endless source of confusion even amongst practitioners in the field. There is also nothing wrong with the title. Even though one of the three terms is deprecated, it is useful for those readers who came to it through that term. SpinningSpark 15:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Kvng has this exactly right. It could end up remaining an article, or being merged into to another article and becoming a redirect. The unresolved discussion, IMO, is not a factor here: whatever the consensus on that, my Keep remains the same: all that might affect is the naming. —Quondum 16:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait – Probably Redirect to Level (logarithmic quantity)#Definitions, but probably need to do some merge first, and replace the ridiculously flaky cite used for the definition there. Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2018 (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.