Deletion of Orders of magnitude (voltage)

Comment: The information is useful and generally well sourced and easily meets the requirements of , which says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." There is nothing in LISTN that says textbooks don't count, and I expect there are similar tables in other encyclopedias. The stuff that isn't referenced is hardly controversial and can be challenged if need be. At worst the content could be merged back into the Volt article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: Some of these "orders of magnitude" pages are a bit pointless, but this voltage one gives a real feel for what the range of orders mean in the real world.  The argument {{xt|if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one}} seems to be admitting that reliable sources can be found, but tries to discount them because Wikipedia is not a textbook.  NOTTEXTBOOK does not say that.  It says that articles should not be written like a "how-to".  This page is far from a how-to.  It doesn't tell the reader how to do anything.  WP:RS, under , list textbooks under "usually the most reliable sources".  Absolutely text books add to the notability of this page.  So https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E4O662eBIu8C&pg=RA1-PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false here's a textbook giving such a list and I'm tempted to point the nominator at another textbook for the proper use of grammar
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:SOURCETYPES)