Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parallel force


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  21:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Parallel force

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Speedy was declined due to article being clear. There is nothing notable and clear here from my POV. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Power~enwiki (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The speedy request was A1, no context, and the I declined the speedy because the article did not meet the requirements of A1: "If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate". -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  01:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Aborted high school essay without context. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC).


 * Possibly Keep – Regarding the !votes above, the article does provide some context, does not qualify for speedy deletion, and it is assumptive to refer to this short article as an "aborted high school essay", because it is a relatively new article created on 2 September 2017 (UTC). Perhaps the user may come back later to add to it, or perhaps not. Coverage in Google Scholar and Google Books demonstrates notability. An idea is to let the article stay in hopes that it will be expanded. North America1000 02:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Created on September 2? Hmm.  Shades of Eternal September.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep, the article was definitely not a valid CSD A1. This isn't my topic of specialty but I found a few offsite references to it ( https://www.reference.com/science/parallel-force-system-a6400d40d623f6b4, http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_ewen_applied_10/180/46085/11797995.cw/index.html , http://www.nhvweb.net/nhhs/science/hbrochinsky/files/2011/09/Inclined-Planes-and-Forces-Notes.pdf ) that indicate it might be a real thing.  Being somewhat poorly written is not justification for deletion.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep Important basic STEM topic. I've added one reference some references and an image.  This is a fundamental topic in mechanics.  It describes, for example, how pitch stability works in an airplane (main wing lift, horizontal stabilizer down force, and force due to gravity are all parallel forces).  The article clearly needs work, but it's a valid topic.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 18:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment this is still an obvious delete. It appears to be a definition from a textbook with the context removed, given under a misleading name.  The references are arbitrary search results for "parallel force".  When two forces are acting parallel to each other, one can call them "a parallel force", but it is not a term, per se. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * delete basically ad WP:DICTDEF when taken out of context, which is where we are exactly. Without going into force vectors, the topic is incomprehensible. Also, it doesn't seem to me that much of what the article says, beyond the definition, is true: in the airplane example, what matters is that in level flight the forces all cancel out and do not add up to angular motion, whether or not any pair of them are parallel. Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that the three forces here are all defined as being vertical (at least in the case of zero bank angle). Yes, the wing produces a net aerodynamic force at some arbitrary angle, but conventionally, it's decomposed into lift (vertical) and drag (horizontal), specifically to make this sort of analysis possible.  That's a general method for solving many kinds of mechanics problems.  Decompose all the physical forces into some orthogonal set of components parallel to the coordinate system axes, and then you can do this sort of parallel force analysis.  I agree that the article is badly written.  And probably also badly titled; something like Parallel force analysis would be a better title.  But, both the general concept, and the specific phrase parallel force used to describe it, are important enough that it's worth having an article.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per Mangoe. Respectfully, I have to disagree with RoySmith; I cannot see this article ever progressing beyond WP:DICTDEF. Ifnord (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 19:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: It may be that what is going here with the disagreement is a difference in perspective depending on whether one's background is stronger in physics or engineering. Mine is physics, so my first reaction is to think the page is trivial and clearly should be deleted. I even wondered if the "keep" supporters were just having fun and trolling. But I follow the first reference and find a discussion that is pretty much what RoySmith was talking about (parallel force analysis). To a physicist it the textbook discussion looks like a long-winded description of a specific type case of high-school mechanics problem. The physicist cares about more general principles of arbitrary forces (and torques) summing up to some resultant, which is no doubt fully described somewhere here already. "Parallel forces" is then just an adjective and a noun, not a topic. The mechanical engineers apparently care about discussing the specifics of special cases, and this is one of them. The page may still be trivial and not worth keeping. But what do people with a mechanical engineering background say about it? -- Gpc62 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC), Gpc62 (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly keep - article has real content with citations thanks to other user's efforts. It seems to be an actual useful topic. One thing to consider I haven't yet looked into - would it make sense to merge this article with any others? (I.e., does this topic fit nicely into another?) --Nerd1a4i (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep From the textbook sources added since the nomination (Nice work, ), this looks like a standard sort of engineering mechanics problem. Multiple independent reliable sources show this topic to be notable in the engineering field and the article is currently a reasonable. stub. Parallel force system is perhaps a more common name, with 2,500 GBooks hits and discussion in many engineering mechanics textbooks. --Mark viking (talk) 19:09, 24 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.