Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6AQ5

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. per sources located 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6AQ5

[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)

Unsourced for an extended period of time with no evident basis for notability. Present sourcing are all PRIMARY. Formerly a PROD; dePROD was on grounds that the EL90 guise of this type was notable but there is no statement toward notability present in article. Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All primary sources with no mention of why this model of product would be notable, let alone any secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ - weak keep based on 5 things:
- It has an entry at radiomuseum.org whose articles have been determined elsewhere to be an authoritative, reliable source (I couldn't find the discussion today, however). We have 450-ish articles citing this site. (Don't be put off by the 1990s era website design).
- The potential redirect target, List of vacuum tubes, is hard to navigate.
- These tube articles are useful to the 10-15 people who look at them at each day. Not a big number, I know, but they likely appreciate them.
- Various tubes are discussed in multiple out-of-print handbooks now online
- If we're being honest, ILIKEIT

I'm not sure this counts but these tubes are widely mentioned in Google Scholar results. That said, I didn't go through all 262 mentions to look for any that are only about the 6AQ5 vacuum; I doubt there are.

These comments would also apply to the 4 tube articles proposed for deletion: 5Y3, 6N3P, 6N24P,and 6P1P. @Pbritti, I wanted to discuss those 4 with you first before possibly removing their PROD tags but I hadn't gotten around to it before this AfD.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.: Sorry you didn't get a chance to reach out before the AfD got rolling but I'm glad we can chat here! Frankly, ILIKEIT arguments have a compelling case here. I would be lying if I said I didn't feel a little guilty while submitting those PRODs and this AfD–I'm sure a few people rely on Wikipedia and sites like radiomuseum.org for their hobbyist information. However, I sincerely feel this subject is better suited either to another website or to a list like List of vacuum tubes (as lamentably messy the latter is). If you would like, I wouldn't mind doing some more digging alongside you. I don't have high hopes, but I'm not exactly concerned about my AfD stats. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For starters, take a look at the radiomuseum.org link for this tube that I cite above. It's got a lot of information but not much prose. See what you think.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beam tetrode and 6V6 (which already lists it in the section about similar valves) would also be worth considering as redirect/merge targets - I think they're more likely to be helpful to someone searching for 6AQ5 or EL90. But it's a pretty common valve and there are older books that use it as an example of a small beam power tetrode, e.g. Orr's Radio Handbook (Sams, 1975). Adam Sampson (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Sampson, thank you.

I’ll look at these. I’m not a tube guy but I have many hobbyist friends that are.

I’m generally in favor of densifying Wikipedia - same content, fewer articles. Wikipedia sprawls over 6+ million articles of variable quality. Probably several million of those are small articles that could be condensed into several hundred thousand bigger, more reliable articles - easier to adequately monitor and maintain.

I know I don’t want to redirect the 6AQ5 article to the big List of vacuum tubes article but I’m happy if 6AQ5 gets merged (with no loss of content) to an article about this general type of tube. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever - I may be away before this AfD is closed. Based on this thoughtful discussion, I trust y'all to do whatever the right thing is with this article as well as with those 4 PRODs. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Pbritti. I deprodded this one rather than the others as it's perhaps the most likely to be notable. I didn't say it was notable in Wikipedia terms but "well known" and may attract comment because of its European EL90 designation. Also, the valve's still in use. The other reason was out of interest as to how and whether notability could be established for this type of valve; sort of a test case. Rupples (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No individual electronics part number is notable enough on its own to be suitable for an article in a general interest encyclopedia. Article of this type never give any explanations for the reason for the part number's development. Put it in a list of vacuum tubes, use it as an illustration in the history of beam tetrodes, but no need for an individual article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I don't know anything about the subject matter but in this discussion I see suggestions for a Merge or Redirect. I'd like to encourage seeking an ATD to be VERY specific on what should happen with the content of this article. I don't see a strong opinion to Keep this as a standalone article but could this page title be directed elsewhere? Again, be specific.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. NYC Guru (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A. B.'s source from radiomuseum.org is solid. There are indeed also a lot of hits on ProQuest/Google Books around various electronics, including promising SIGCOV like [1][2][3][4]

It may be that List of vacuum tubes needs some reworking before we can properly start merging such articles, so we shouldn't rush to delete, but if someone can propose a better merge target for now, I'd probably support it. Lastly, I'd like to point out that WP:5 says Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias. We're not limited to general interest articles. —siro χ o 06:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two citations, there are more that exist at the Internet Archive[5]. For example this article[6] is built around discussion of this tube but I can't make use of it to improve the article. As with many older things the amount of online discussion is limited, but a simple search at archive.org will show that this was a widely used tube. I think @Siroxo makes some good points about the desirability of special-interest articles particularly for something like this where there's no obvious redirect target. Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading my comment, I want to clarify that by saying "a simple search" I had no intention to call out @Pbritti for the extent of WP:BEFORE searches. Going to archive.org isn't essential even if it's a good move for pre-digital era subjects. I appreciate their consideration of the improvements made to the article and of course support the request to withdraw. Oblivy (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw due to the work of multiple editors to improve this article, located additional sources, and advocate for retention based on an argument that resonates with Wikipedia's objective of freely sharing valuable knowledge. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:07, 28 November 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.