Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equivalent moment of inertia of worm and wheel


 * 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   merge to Moment of inertia. –MuZemike 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Equivalent moment of inertia of worm and wheel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article pretty much amounts to a how-to article. The first two paragraphs are just introductions to moment of inertia and mechanics, which leaves the last paragraph about how to measure the equivalent moment of inertia of worm and wheel. Moreover, this topic is completely not notable. Wizard191 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge any salvageable content with Worm drive moment of inertia; delete the rest. I don't see the point of a redirect either. --  role player 13:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Above comment amended based on comments below. --  role player 12:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  16:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is certainly notable being covered in numerous works about mechanics. The moment of inertia article is awful and we could use some more accessible text such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful to moment of inertia perhaps; the topic alone doesn't warrant a stand-alone article— Chris! c / t 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * merge into moment of inertia as an example. The present article is too unsubstantial to be kept separately.    DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.