Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitational potential


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 06:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Gravitational potential

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article as currently written if you check the references is a collection of self-cited WP:OR data and tables. I'd suggest restoring the redirect to Potential_energy. Q T C 06:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Has significantly more information than the section on Gravitational Potential Energy under Potential Energy. The information needs to be sourced though. Anti  venin  06:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this lot of original research, then redirect back to Potential_energy. Reyk  YO!  07:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: So restore it back to the redirect already then. AfD is not the place to discuss redirects.  Matt (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you can't really call it a redirect anymore when it has 12k of text on it. Q  T C 14:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up the sythesis - the citations show it's not all primary research. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I must be looking at the wrong article. The only thing I see cited that's not from the author is two very very generic formulas, and one constant. The rest is articles and software from the author.  Q  T C 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Physics Fact Book is a secondary source. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DavidWTalmage(talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Comment Ron Hatch (NAVCOM) comments received via email: Very interesting. You might make your point even stronger by considering the point between the earth and moon or else the point between the earth and the sun where the gravitational force is balanced--like balancing a pencil on its point. By their definition the potential energy is canceled since there is no net restoring force in either direction--but there certainly is still the sum of the two gravitational potentials. DavidWTalmage(talk) 23:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Comment (primary author) Remove WP:OR, Improve/Add References, Improve synthysis


 * 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.