Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UPPER CRITICAL MACH NO


 * 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   merge to Critical Mach number. "merge usable content".... j⚛e deckertalk 17:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

UPPER CRITICAL MACH NO

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We should either delete this as a non-notable science with no independent sources, or merge with existing article Critical Mach number. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge usable content into Mach number Critical Mach number . The terms "lower" and "upper" critical mach number are defined here:, and I don't think the subject is non-notable, but the article is too much of a mess to salvage. All the references are actually internal links to Wikipedia. The same applies to lower critical mach number. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I like this new proposal, but why not merge to Critical Mach number? --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant to write. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Same person also created Lower critical mach number, Gun Tunnel and Lift divergence.  The Lower article should also have an AfD notice tied into this one.  Not sure about the others.  Bgwhite (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete, absolutely, and do as Sammy1339 said. Eman 235 / talk  06:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge per Sammy. Sam Walton (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2014 (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.