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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) @ 17:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statohm[edit]

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

14 word article. I tried to redirect it and merge but that was reverted. Putting to more formal process to have merged. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, as inappropriate venue. I don't believe that the nominator actually wishes the page gone, rather just wants to challenge the merge revert. Opening a discussion on the talk page would be more appropriate. I reverted it because it was merged to an entirely inappropriate place, the ohm article is part of a completely different set of units and will only add confusion there. While I am not absolutely against some kind of merge, the topic is probably defensible as a standalone page on the grounds that it is capable of expansion. Most material on this unit and its history is likely to be in 1960s texts when the system was actually in use. Unfortunately gbooks is quite poor at providing preview from this era so building an article from online sources would be difficult. Nevertheless, there is some material available, there is some discussion in this book for instance. These are also the units used by James Clerk Maxwell, a central figure (the central figure) in the development of electromagnetism. There is some discussion of these units as they relate to Maxwell in this book. At the very least, the article could be expanded along the lines of the statmho article, a sister article similarly reverted. SpinningSpark 17:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". We have articles about the statcoulomb and the statvolt so why wouldn't we have this unit too? If it seems short currently then that just means it's a stub in need of expansion. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I nominated for delete on the basis that dozens of these new short articles on obsoleted units are out there and there is an effort to ID and combine them into reasonably useful articles. Make it something useful if it is important to you. 17:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no compunction on anybody to work on anything, and as Andrew pointed out to you, failure to work on a stub is not grounds for its deletion. SpinningSpark 19:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep in the current much-improved state after Andrew D's work. The situation is that a single editor with apparently poor English language skills, no particular demonstrated expertise in the subject matter,and blind faith in a source other editors have doubts about, is creating an unstoppable stream of articles on units - first one by one, now country by country- which are full of problems. and of doubtful nett value to the encyclopaedia without a similar rescue operation. 20:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep After the recent work done, this looks like a fine stub. the statohm is a electromagnetism unit of historical significance and is verifiable in reliable sources, some of which are used in the article. There is no policy-based reason for deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I do not think that deleting this article now would be a step forward, but I can't see it as better than a step sideways. The trouble is that this does not really merit an encyclopedia article, it merits inclusion in an article which explains the esu system so that at least someone like me can understand it. I cannot see that it is efficient to struggle to improve this article, or any of the other disconnected articles on esu units, before trying to write a proper article on esu itself. I get very quickly lost in this stuff, because it is genuinely hard; the article on Gaussian units is trying to explain things, and not quite making it. (The original stub really was so vacuous that deleting it would have benefitted humanity, at least by saving the time wasted on unproductive discussion.) Imaginatorium (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Sorry, I missed electrostatic units, and have updated the link. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2015 (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.