Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relative velocity


 * 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. John254 04:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Relative velocity

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Discussion from talk page:


 * This article is a candidate for for deletion, as it is in a mess and has had inconsistent and inaccurate edits with seeming destructive edit wars. Relative velocity is not an article of opinion but of basic fact!. A paragraph can be incorporated in Velocity. Zubenzenubi (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. This was my suggestion originally too. Anyone who objects to deleting this article and including a paragraph in the velocity article please object here before 23rd Jan 2008. I will delete this article by then if no one else does so. Mushoo (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This was an incomplete nomination. I'm completing it now. No opinion is being expressed by me. And I also told the second editor that they wouldn't be deleting it. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 13:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Velocity, which already contains a description of relative velocity. Mh29255 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The confusion indicates the need for the article and its current state seems fine. The main article on velocity is the one that needs work IMO, being too technical currently.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Being inconsistent, having inaccurate edits, and being the subject of edit wars is not a reason to delete an article, it is a reason to (a) improve the article, (b) seek dispute resolution if necessary, and (c) instead of wholesale reversion of others' edits, bouncing back and forth between competing incomplete versions, consider incorporating the "good" portions of each competing version, and compromise. The real, separate question is whether there could be enough here for a stand-alone article, or if it should be incorporated into and redirected to Velocity.  I think expanding this material in the Velocity article would overwhelm that article, giving too much weight to the #Relative velocity section.  I believe there is enough potential material here that a separate article is warranted, although I'll admit it's somewhat close to the borderline. --barneca (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but thoroughly improve. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's an important physics concept, definitely need to keep the article despite its flaws. matt91486 (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - important concept which merits its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2008 (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.