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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Capacitance. Although several votes were to keep, almost all of them were based on opinion; therefore this will be redirected for the timebeing per WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN. If you feel that there may be an issue, please see WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (capacitance)[edit]

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

Orders of magnitude (capacitance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A majorly unsourced article (and a few of the sourced ines are unreliable) that fails WP:LISTN and is comprised of noble-synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBGconverse 06:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also fails WP:LISTN: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" – which this one hasn't. There's also what looks like WP:OR in the right-hand column. If anyone wants to know what (for example) fF means, they can type it into the search box and land on the DAB page FF, which includes a handy link to femtofarad. This list isn't even worth merging into farad.
The same goes for all the other nominated articles of this type. Narky Blert (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide multiple sources that covers the topic of order of magnitude of capacitance (not range of voltage) in a significant manner. I also note that one of your such boiler-plate arguments have been excellently refuted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (luminous flux).∯WBGconverse 13:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 07:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is useful because it compares different amounts of capacitance, and most of it is referenced. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:08, 31 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orders_of_magnitude_(capacitance)&oldid=866986683"