Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transient (acoustics)

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. Black Kite (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transient (acoustics)[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it describes a term which is a misnomer for the phenomenon it describes. It's a misnomer that is occasionally used but not common enough to have notability. There are also no reliable sources or references Vexorg (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. I don't care which, so long as it's a good redirect if that's the decision. I couldn't find an entirely satisfactory redirect target when I looked before [1], but happy to be proven wrong there. This is a common term for a widely discussed phenomenon (almost six million ghits, and 22 incoming links from other English Wikipedia articles, see article talk), and we need an article describing the phenomenon somewhere, and a means for people searching for this information using this term (however wrongly) to find it. And I am doing some work on the refs, watch progress there. Andrewa (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is jargon, but I'm not really sure it is a misnomer. Using it for the attack phase is perhaps wrong, but a transient signal is a real life occurrence. He writes, while coughing. Greglocock (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A transient is indeed a real life occurance, but the point is what this article is describing isn't a transient. it's a bit like describing a bicycle as a car. Vexorg (talk)

More like describing a Vespa as a Moped, really. But seriously, this term is very broadly used (possibly even the most commonly used) term for an acoustical phenomenon. If there are reliable sources that discuss this use as misnomer (rather than an alternate definition, as noted over at Wiktionary), then they should be included in the article. Deletion is not the correct action for a common misnomer. VQuakr (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - it certainly is a misnomer. The article also has no reliable sources and the editor who is adamant on keeping this article cannot find any. the phenomenon which the misnomer 'transient' is applied to does not just occur in acoustics either it occurs in electrical signals too. the whole article is erroneous on several levels Vexorg (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment very unusual to see the nominator casting a 'vote' in an AFD. Greglocock (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It happens all the time. Vexorg (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm the editor who is adamant on keeping this article, as I'm the one who requested that it be restored after it was PRODed a while ago, leaving a stack of redlinks. I also posted a heads-up to those involved in the PROD, one of whom then immediately re-proposed it for PROD and has now posted this AfD. No objections to that, but I do rather object to the claim that I cannot find any reliable sources. I've posted one, and I see that there's now another from another contributor (thank you). What we are lacking, however, is any source for the claim that this is a misnomer. I trust this will be corrected. Andrewa (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are the editor that is adamant in keeping this article. While we all know that some people so use the term 'transient' for an attack portion of an audio signal, we all know ( including you ) know that the term is a misnomer when applied in this case. The inclusion of reliable sources is irrelevant as there are always people with the mentality that would fight for an article claiming the Sun is made out of dark chocolate if they found enough reliable sources. just becuase Wikipedia's guidelines are flawed it doesn't mean one has to follow them like an automaton. It's your choice. You can either follow the flawed Wikipedia guidelines or you can think for yourself and help create an Encyclopaedia that has better value for humanity. Your conscious. nothing ever got improved by herd mentality. :) Vexorg (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the term is (by your own admission) used, and if there are (as in this case) some reliable sources, then the article should be kept. "We all know that the term is a misnomer" - in that case, what you should do is discuss on the article's talk page what the correct term should be, and move the article according to the consensus to the correct title, or reach a consensus on the article's page on the correct meaning for the term - in either case, deletion is not the correct approach to this editing disagreement. If you can find reliable sources which indicate that this is indeed a misnomer, then provide them and we can add that verifiable information to the article.

As to your disagreement with the consensually-agreed reliable sources criteria... you have two choices, from what I can see - either start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability and get the consensus changed, or start your own wiki- or other-based encyclopedia, with your criteria for inclusion! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term adamant might be more correctly applied to yourself. I've sought consensus, for example by advising you and the other supporter of the first PROD that a restore was requested [2] [3] which I did not need to do, and offered several options including dropping the whole idea of undeletion [4]. You on the other hand seem to shift ground, for example going from demanding sources and claiming I can't find any to now saying they're irrelevant and that you can but won't because you don't need to, and there is worse on the article talk page (where I am allegedly obsessive [5]). Andrewa (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added a cite from the handbook of acoustics, and several more reliable sources appear to be available. As near as I can tell, this is better defined as an alternate definition of the term than a misnomer. Even if incorrect, it appears to be a notable misnomer. If there is a more appropriate term for a short duration sound, then the place for that discussion would be the article talk page. Incidentally, the military sonar term appears essentially unrelated and probably should be split into another article. VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Common term in audio compression/processing. Do a Google Scholar search for transient audio compression algorithm. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom really. Standard case of a technical article being created before it has done anything in the field. It will quite possibly be recreated when he makes it debuts on loan somewhere like the new iPhone next season but for now no professional contracts means back to the main article Sonarclawz (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Que? Greglocock (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it was worth creating this proposed deletion entry just to hear the name Greglocock. May I extend my fullest respect for your comedy genius! Vexorg (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, the nom really wants this deleted, not merged, deleted and nothing else will do. This is their third try (the first PROD succeeded, I'm puzzled that the 22 incoming links didn't alert anyone that there was something going on, but there you are). There has been no willingness to consider creating a meaningful redirect, just the opposite, the reaction to my attempt was to delete its target paragraph [6] (which I hadn't created, it was already there). Nom wants to change Wikipedia and the world, see Talk:Transient (acoustics). No argument with any of that, it's just that here ain't the place. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply LMFAO at being accused of wanting to change Wikipedia and the world. Wikipedia is indeed flawed, but just goign along with those flaws in an automaton manner is even more flawed. Vexorg (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, a merge and redirect isn't a useful compromise, because it doesn't address the issues which are the reason for this AfD. Is that a fair statement? If it's not, then perhaps we can work out a strong consensus after all, one that you can support. That's the best outcome, in all ways: It satisfies everyone, and more important, it's likely to be the most encyclopedic outcome too. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references now in the article are sufficient to justify keeping this article, although I'll concede that more references are needed. If this is indeed a misnomer, I'd be willing to reconsider my opinion if some reliable independent sources verifying that to be the case can be provided. In that case, a redirect or merge might be more appropriate, but failing the provision of such verification, this article should be kept. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Not even sure that it is a misnomer. Greglocock (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ?? You've already "voted" above, and made the same point. Or am I missing something? Nom is clearly the only one who favours deletion at this point, so maybe it's not all that important. Andrewa (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is a misnomer, explain in the article, with sources. It's used enough that people will want information DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 18 April 2012 (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.