Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero and First Order Holds

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 of the debate was delete. Although this needn't have been be brought to AfD, the discussion below supports deletion. --Ezeu 19:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero and First Order Holds

Zero-order hold and First-order hold should have their own separate articles. possibly linking to each other. both titles should have a hyphen in them. the information given for the FOH is technically inaccurate. someone soon can create a correct First-order hold article. r b-j 02:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I initially closed this article as a keep, since it sounded like a move was going to be done, which is something that does not need to be brought to AfD. Also, if any content is used in a new article, the old one must redirect to the new one to preserve attribution. I think that it has been cleared up that content from the article will not be used in any new articles. Also, keeping the article as a redirect is seen as confusing, since it would have to link to one of the pages but its title suggests that it has content on both topics. -- Kjkolb 02:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

i do not plan to keep or use any content from the article in question. it will be about approximately the same topic, but when i create First-order hold (as soon as i get certain drawings to start it), it will not resemble the section of the same title of the article of issue now. i wish the original editor of this article would pipe in. i found his web page and sent him an email. maybe he will soon, but i do not know and i want to correct some of this soon. r b-j 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The old article should be a disambig page, linking to both articles. I think this AfD can be closed as Keep. --Tango

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think it's good to keep. the article is not used by or linked by any other article. the content of the article should have been separated in the first place. the writing in the article leaves a lot to be desired. the original author (who would be the only person with an interest since no one else seems to even know it's here) is nowhere to be found (and i have e-mailed him directly). the "first-order hold" that he describes is about the most academic and worthless version of the FOH (i didn't even recognize the impulse response, but i did eventually find a MATLAB simulink reference to such an animal) and that FOH is incompatible with the piecewise linear drawing of an FOH output in the top graph. there was never a need for this combined article, it's mistitled (there are hyphens missing), it's poorly written, has technical error, i've already written the separate articles of the two different ZOH and FOH with accurate equations and illustrative drawings, also pointing out the differences between the different versions of FOH, no one has come to defend the combined article, it's not referred to by any article, and there is no stated reason for a disambig.. tell me, Tango, what is there to keep? and how did you draw any conclusion that there is a consensus to keep, thus closing as "keep"?

recently i was disappointed to see an article proof by verbosity delected. that article had more accurate content and reason to exist than this one. r b-j 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

one last note (for comparison): as i mentioned to Kjkolb, this is akin to an article titled William and Hillary Clinton. that should be a red link. it is about two different but related topics. they deserve their own separate articles. because they are related, it is appropriate to have each point to the other, perhaps in the ==See also== section. but it should be a red link as shold Zero and First Order Holds . if William and Hillary Clinton were to redirect, who should it redirect to? if it's a disambig that simply lists Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, it offers nothing. it has no reason to exist. r b-j 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested keeping any of the content - I suggested turning it into a disambig. I don't know the topic, but if they're never refered to as one thing, then the page can be deleted. Is there any chance of people linking to or searching for them as one thing? If not, then delete. --Tango 22:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

i do know the topic, and my guess is that for every 99 times that someone, anyone is looking up zero-order hold, there will be 1 time that someone will look up first-order hold. i don't know of a single device that does the latter, but i will not say definitively that no commercial implementation of a DAC with first-order hold exists. i think they are generally unnecessary but make for interesting textbook material. i think there is no chance of someone looking up "zero and first order holds" without first looking up "zero-order hold" or "first-order hold". there are 75 hits on Google of "zero and first order holds", mostly WP and mirrors or of a single IEEE paper with that phrase in the title. the concepts are different but related enough that there should be links cross-referencing it. but, like Bill and Hillary, they're not the same thing. r b-j 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

i have today received email from the original author (below). i think he means to agree or defer to my judgement when he says "Please go ahead ". can we delete this thing now? r b-j 02:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

----------
From: Arash Abadpour <abadpour@win.trlabs.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:59:31 -0500
To: robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com>
Subject: Re: Abadpour, i've been trying to get your attention at your   Wikipedia talk page.

Robert,
 Thanks for correcting it.
Arash
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> on 06/20/2006 13:10, Arash Abadpour at abadpour@win.trlabs.ca wrote:
>
>   
>> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>     
>>> Will you go there and look?  There are problems with some pages you have
>>> created and I didn't want to go there and lay waste without contacting you.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Hi Robert
>> I saw your modifications. You are indeed a knowledgeable person in the
>> field. Please go ahead and thanks for your email.
>> Regards, Arash
>>     
>
> we might delete the "Zero and First Order Holds" page in favor of the
> separate pages.
>
> actually, i never heard of or known of the "predictive" FOH (you didn't use
> the term "predictive") until i started investigating the strange looking (at
> least to me at the time) impulse response you had for the FOH.  your top
> graph with linear interpolation was for a "regular" FOH that i previously
> knew about and i could tell that you would *not* get that nice linear
> interpolation with the FOH impulse response you had shown.  so, at first, i
> just thought your FOH section was simply wrong.  but it had the effect of
> forcing me to research the web and i *did* come up with some reference to a
> predictive FOH that had that weird impulse response, so i included that in
> the final section of First-order hold.
>
> thanks for getting back to me.
>
>
>

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.