Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Switched-mode power supply applications Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Switched-mode_power_supply_applications

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Switched-mode power supply applications (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect reverted multiple times. When the parts of this article that aren't about switch-mode power supplies are deleted, the small amount of remaining content is completely redundant with Switch-mode power supply#Applications Wtshymanski (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main article "Switched-mode power supply" (SMPS) mentions little about applications of the SMPS technology which is one of the most widespread and key technologies for electric power conversion currently. Thus it finds uses in many areas not mentioned in the main article. The article mentions both applications and type of (electrical) environments they are used in, be it mobile phone battery charging or nuclear submarine power network. The SMPS article is about the technology itself while the Switched-mode power supply applications, is about the application of it. The contents covered there isn't covered in the main article and thus article nuke and redirect is counterproductive. Adding info to the main article is meet with undoing of contents. This kind disruptive, article removal and delete behavior from the AfD requester has already been up at Administrators noticeboard in 2011. Electron9 (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a reasonable WP:SPINOFF of the Switched-mode power supply article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep, but a lot of cleanup is needed. It's an appropriate split, as Northamerica1000 writes, because there's a lot of scope to cover in both articles and we could even hit size limits with the amount that deserves writing on these two major topics. However the current applications article is very poor, in typical WP manner - it's devoid of structure or any editorial coherence. Applications are listed as one sentence notes that don't expand any further than "Foo uses SMPS", there is no context for why they do, why this application benefits particularly, or when they started to use SMPS. In particular, SMPS have a long, but narrow, history that has recently expanded dramatically to replace low-end uses that were previously iron transformers and linear regulators. We need some context as to why this happened. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article material is sufficiently plentiful to warrant retention. However, it could benefit substantially from attention from a knowledgeable editor. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A merge (which Wtshymanski tried first) would make the Switched-mode power supply page too long. The present article needs a lot of work, but Wikipedia has no deadlines, and the sources are out there. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep though I remind editors that it should not be necessary, at an AfD, to note the need for such article improvements, they should already be there. However, I suggest a bit more discussion back and forth before similar AfDs, they will save us all time. Everyone is acting in good faith, in future it should be easy to get on the same page.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 31 July 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.