Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keel effect


 * 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Some participants herein have also opined for a potential merge, which can be discussed on an article talk page if desired. North America1000 05:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Keel effect

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dicdef, only one source, unlikely to be expanded. Full of buzzwords and techincal terms, doesn't seem notable. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Stated to be an aeronautical term but it is definitely not in use in mainstream aeronautical literature. This article was initiated nearly a decade ago but has since been abandoned in a poor state. Dolphin  ( t ) 22:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The article may have been in an imperfect state since 2007, but this discussion on StackExchange demonstrates that it has been useful to others. It gets 600 visits a month, which is not bad for such a specialised topic. The effect is real, non-trivial, of interest to a wider audience -, , and the information can be verified in reliable sources. The current wording may be a little technical, but we don't require every article to accessible to general audience. A quick search shows that the term is commonly used by aviators. Rentier (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep it has potential to be expanded beyond being a DICDEF. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * . Where is the proof that this is a notable topic? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a specialist aviation topic, so you won't find it in general news. Some specialist publications use it as a term, some have more detail, I would compare this to a mathematical topic. See.  Note also that this topic is referred to as 'pendulum effect' or pendulum 'stability'


 * Keep - This is an aeronautics engineering topic. WP:NOT does not apply. ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So being a topic means WP:NOTDICDEF doesn't apply? That makes sense. How is this a notable thing? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: ~Kvng (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been an aeronautical engineer and pilot for close to four decades and I've never heard of it. It's probably notable in naval architecture, but it isn't in aeronautics. Dolphin  ( t ) 01:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It does show up in a lot of books written for pilots. ~Kvng (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. This is a basic topic in the the design of lateral stability of an aircraft. It is also called the pendulum effect. See for instance, training materials describing lateral stability for an FAA test, a a flight tutorial, and all the aviation manuals Kvng pointed out. It is often discussed along with dihedral or anhedral configurations, so it would also be fine to merge into Dihedral (aeronautics). --Mark viking (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks I have created a Pendulum effect redirect. 15:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to the section highlighted by . I lean towards merge. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep As stated above, a merge would likely be best, but if not accomplished I suppose it wouldn't hurt to keep - that is, with proper upkeep. This article seems to have been left for dead, but I can see it having its uses in some medium! Bryan C. W. (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2017 (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.