Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foot-pound-second system


 * 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. Ral315 (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Foot-pound-second system
Seems to be more original research by Rktect. Unlike the Metric system, Imperial and classical measurement systems don't have well-defined sets of base units. --Carnildo 18:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've heard of the foot-pound-second system, so I don't think it's entirely original research. I don't know if the article is accurate, though. -- Kjkolb 20:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The "foot-pound-second" system you're talking about is a subset of the U.S. customary units, which we've got a perfectly good article on already. --Carnildo 21:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * '''Speedy delete under criteria G4. Admins can go and check the old versions of the dozens of articles vfd a few months ago listed aat top of to verify that this is indeed content that has been deleted via Afd previously. -- (drini's page| &#x260E; ) 20:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * User Carnildo is simply incorrect when he says classical measurement systems don't have well defined sets of base units. He's also incorrect when he says feet pounds and seconds are a subset of US customary units. Greek feet, Roman feet etc; are not a subset of US customary units. Likewise the second is a classical rather than a modern division. User Drini claims that this is content previously deleted via "Afd" what is an Afd? Let him be more specific Federal Street 10:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Afd" refers to "articles for deletion," which is the process under which the article is going now. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 15:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Bah Rktect, you getting a new sockpuppet (evidence gathered at, Egil can provide proof if necessary) account won't be of use to claim ignorance. You seem well how to discuss on an AfD page. -- (drini's page| &#x260E; ) 16:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is nothing about a foot-pound-second system on the page referenced by Drini, and there is nothing anywhere about a foot-pound-second system having been previously discussed. Since people are familiar with this system and there is no other article which specifically addresses it and it isn't a subset of US units, is there any valid objection to an article on this topic? Federal Street 10:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 3rk3tect, there are three different subsystems of units called "foot-pound-second" systems: the absolute foot-pound-second system, the gravitational foot-pound-second system, and the engineering foot-pound-second system.  These are used in calculations, because they form "coherent" (or nearly so) systems of units.  None of these systems include any "fingers" or "palms" or "cubits" or "roods" or "kennings" among their units.  As a matter of fact, they don't even include any gallons of any type (Imperial, U.S. liquid, whatever), no yards or acres or ounces either--any of those units must first be converted into the particular fps system being used before using it, and often need to be converted out of that system at the end once the calculations are completed, to express the result in some units not contained within that system.  Gene Nygaard 14:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A Google test is sufficient to show the existence and use of these terms, and their meaning when used. Gene Nygaard 14:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Google ! hits
 * gravitational foot-pound-second
 * align="right"| 207
 * gravitational fps
 * align="right"| 588
 * absolute fps system
 * align="right"| 67
 * engineering fps
 * align="right"| 346
 * }
 * engineering fps
 * align="right"| 346
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * Delete. Sockpuppet creation by User:Federal Street = User:Rktect.  Furthermore, the term "foot-pound-second system of units" is indeed used, as some other commentator mentioned above.  However, this terminology is normally applied only to specific coherent or nearly coherent subsystems of units, the first of which only came into use in 1879, systems which do not include any inches or ounces or miles (there exist other "inch-pound-second" systems of units too).  These specific systems are often further identified as more specific subsystems, as they are in the table in the pound article, as the "absolute foot-pound-second system" (uses poundals for force and pounds for mass), the "gravitational foot-pound-second system" (uses slugs for mass and pounds (pounds-force) for force, never used before the 20th century), and the "engineering foot-pound-second system" (uses neither poundals nor slugs; uses pounds for mass and pounds-force for force).  Gene Nygaard 13:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete This article seems to be just another vehicle of User:Rktect for his stories about Mesopotamian and Egyptian measures, et al. We seen it before, a number of times. -- Egil 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsence DV8 2XL 18:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If an encyclopic article on the foot-pound-second system should be limited to what someone finds in a quick google search, why does Wikipedia exist? Before you begin to talk about foot-pound-second systems in Newtonian terms it makes sense to look at what they were before they were combined into a system. Why not just add the content you feel is missing to articles called the "inch-pound-second" system, the "absolute foot-pound-second system", the "gravitational foot-pound-second system" and the "engineering foot-pound-second system" which as you describe them all appear to be different from the foot pound second system ? Federal Street 10:17, 20 October 2005 (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.