Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta-v (physics)

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. Spebi 04:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delta-v (physics)

Nothing more than defining that delta v is the difference in v, which delta something always is (see delta (letter)) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just because the article only currently includes this (it's a stub), the article may eventually contain other information, such as the relationship between delta-v and accident damage. The concept crops up in a number of different scenarios, and relates to other areas.WolfKeeper (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts about that. As Δv == <a>, acceleration seems the quantity of intrest. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peak acceleration is somewhat important in accident damage but the thing is, delta-v determines the energy lost in any inelastic collision, and that energy has to go towards deformation and so forth. Also, another use is in gravity assist. There the delta-v is easy to calculate but the instantaneous quantity is reasonably messy. I could probably come up with others; and widen it to include relativistic delta-v effects.WolfKeeper (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no way it can be expanded beyond a simple unnecessary definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to velocity. This seems to me a page that doesn't need to exist. Is the change in the notable concept of velocity itself notable? Yes, and we have acceleration for that. If there is any content worth merging, it can be sent there. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acceleration is a rate of change, which can vary over time in messy ways. In quite a few cases we don't want to know about the messy instantaneous details, we can black box an interaction and use delta-v instead. It is actually quite useful.WolfKeeper (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a whole seperate page is needed to describe it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we have ___location, distance, Displacement (vector), speed, velocity, and acceleration. To me, it seems like Delta-V is an acceptable topic, seeing as what else we have. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having small pages makes it easier to understand for viewers in elementary physics. As above IP user said, there seems to be a precedent for having many pages around this area. However, as "delta-v" is an obscure title, it should be ensured that the article does not become orphaned or lonely.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Billscottbob (talk • contribs) 03:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An issue of note is that one other very common use of "delta-v" exists (See: Delta-v). That usage does not exactly match what a physicist might expect. This is clarified at Delta-v (disambiguation). (sdsds - talk) 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to velocity. Beast of traal T C _ 16:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)beast of traal[reply]
Keep - Delta-v is a separate concept from either acceleration or velocity, so redirecting there would be factually wrong. It's a term that isn't used very often, but it is used. Also this might fall under WP:IAR. Reasoning goes like this. Student sees delta-v mentioned in their physics text book. Student tries to look it up on Wikipedia. If the only related meaning for delta-v that the student can find is the astrodynamics delta-v, then Wikipedia has not served the student very well. In a sense, the astrodynamics delta-v page needs the physics delta-v page to contrast the meanings of the two terms. Mdmkolbe 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hopefully the student will notice For other uses, see Delta-v (disambiguation). Which can clarify the issue with or without an actual article. Someguy1221 21:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The disambiguation page doesn't reference velocity or acceleration and neither of those address the concept of (physics) delta-v, so I don't see how that could clarify the issue. The only way I could imagine that clarifying the issue is by leaving an entry on the disambiguation, but that seems kind of silly if we delete the article because it's not notable. Mdmkolbe 22:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is on the disambiguation. Delta-v, a mathematical symbol representing a change in velocity as a scalar or vector quantity Someguy1221 23:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I completely agree. But that line is only on there as a link to Delta-v (physics). A vote to delete this article is a vote to remove that line from the disambiguation page. Thus why I don't think this article needs to be deleted. Mdmkolbe 00:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is actually no such requirement. The disambigation page can still identify ΔV as a common expression for change in velocity, even if there is no remaining article on that specific meaning of the term. Someguy1221 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Under that understanding, I'll have to say that I'm starting to move to the fence. The disambiguation page is probably able to contain the essence of everything said in the Delta-v (physics) page. On the other hand, having a Delta-v (physics) page doesn't really hurt Wikipedia and it may help in that it can spell out things like the integral form for delta-v which would probably be too much content for the disambiguation page. I know my calculus well enough that the integral form is almost redundant, but that is not the case for everyone. Mdmkolbe 00:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems useful for students of elementary physics. Joshua Davis 18:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WolfKeeper. For example, see: [1] Dhaluza (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.