Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elastance

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. There is general consensus for this article to be kept and rolled back to when the article was a stub. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elastance (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)

useless dab-page, as it has no proper targets The Banner talk 22:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Both entries comfortably pass WP:DABMENTION. Maybe a third entry could be added for the general concept in mechanics, but I can't seem to find an article where it's covered (there's nothing at Elasticity or Stiffness). – Uanfala (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as creator of DAB page). These are two well defined and clearly distinct meanings of this term, both of which are notable in different spheres of natural science and discussed in different wikipedia articles. Without this DAB page, it's confusing for readers searching for information on one of them when they are redirected to an article that mentions the other. There used to be a stub article on Electrical elastance that was then moved to Elastance, and then merged into Capacitance. Much of the content was lost in the merger. I would not be opposed to recreating that stub at Electrical elastance and possibly creating a new stub about the meaning in physiology, if that would fix the issue raised by the OP. However, this DAB is clearly necessary to avoid reader confusion, and quickly direct users to the information they are looking for. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: but add a definition of the electronics version to Capacitance so that a sensible bluelink can go there from the dab page, rather than just to daraf. I've tweaked the dab page to make it more WP:MOSDAB-compliant for now. PamD 10:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It used to have one, but was removed with the edit summary "balderdash". I have just restored it. SpinningSpark 15:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and roll back to this being an article. The two meanings are not entirely unconnected and the article used to explain this reasonably well. The physiology meaning is merely an application of the term in mechanics. The electrical meaning comes through analogy with mechanical systems, hence the name. Many other quantities in mechanics and electrics share the same name because they share the same constitutive relation sometimes mechanics borrowing from electrical science, as in the case of mechanical impedance, and sometimes the other way round as here. Wikipedia could do a much better job of highlighting this. Deleting this article would be a step backwards. SpinningSpark 15:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and roll back per Spinningspark. This was a promising stub until another editor came along and redirected it to Capacitance, saying "merging". This makes for a rather poor dab page. The physiology term can be linked to in a hatnote. — Gorthian (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the so called merge was no more than adding a dicdef. All the real encyclopaedic information was lost. SpinningSpark 00:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The old stub was unreferenced. Does anyone with an electronics background have a source we can include for it if we're going to re-create it? A cursory Google Search reveals this https://books.google.com/books?id=rfHWHeU0jfsC&pg=SA16-PA11&lpg=SA16-PA11&dq=elastance+electronics&source=bl&ots=OPlqwhMvkB&sig=k8vO2u1EDxQ-IZLDOylfDucooIk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNtaK1hfDQAhXHxlQKHXGMCT8Q6AEIOjAG#v=onepage&q=elastance%20electronics&f=false ("Electrical and Electronics Reference Manual for the Electrical and Computer PE Exam" Page 16-11) but I'm not well-versed in this field so I can't be sure if that's the best citation. I'd be fine with restoring the stub as long as there's a link at the top that says "if you were looking for the inverse of compliance in physiology see compliance (physiology)").. This would be done similarly to the little italic text currently at the top of compliance (physiology) --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source is great for the basic definition. This book verifies most of the information in the old article. It mentions the unit daraf and explains the connection with mechanical compliance. The bigger picture for this relationship is in mechanical-electrical analogies and there may be more information in the references there. Although that article does not currently mention elastance, it could do, and both articles should be cross-linked. This paper on Wilhelm Cauer gives some idea why the concept is useful in network analysis through an example of Cauer using it. This source has a table showing the analogy between mechanical and electrical elastance (not very clearly it has to be said). It would be nice to know who invented the term. My guess would be Oliver Heaviside who coined terms for many of the properties occuring in electromagnetic analysis (and was much criticised for it—but they nearly all stuck so he gets the last laugh). And, aha, having made that guess, I immediately find this to back that up, and here is Heaviside himself talking about it. SpinningSpark 15:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice! Thank you! Keep and roll back then. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This can be rolled back to a version that is acceptable. -- Dane ^talk 00:03, 14 December 2016 (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.