Deletion of Parallel (operator)

Comment: to Series_and_parallel_circuits#Notation, where it is mentioned. This notation is used at times in electrical engineering, but is not common. The notation is verifiable and worth a mention. Redirect to the indicated target section places it in context with what I consider due weight. The parallel operator works fine for capacitors and inductors as well, as long as they are represented as complex impedances, as mentioned in https://books.google.com/books?id=O2POBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA224&dq=%22Parallel+operator%22+resistance+formula&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPz8WA6v3iAhVaHDQIHaThA3sQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%22Parallel%20operator%22%20resistance%20formula&f=false this book. Per our policy , I think redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion for a verifiable, if uncommon, notation. This follows common practice in our math articles, where if an uncommon notation shows up in multiple RS, especially in textbooks, it is considered to have enough impact to be worth briefly documenting. --&#123;&#123;u&#124
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: I have now added various bits, links and refs to the article to make it worth an article of its own. To me this looks enough to let it pass , but, of course, more sources and contents are always welcome
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)