Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restoring 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring force

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It was created in 2006. For approximately 8 years it has not been referenced, ever. It is hardly monitored and no one has made the effort to reference it at all, making it very hard to believe that it is of high importance and that it is reliable or believable. I may not be highly educated in the physics world but this doesn't seem to be legitimate. SilentDan297 talk 23:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important concept. It would be better expanded than deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The nomination does not observe WP:BEFORE. Critical concept in physics, in mathematics, and in such fields as musical instrument design, and covered in depth in physics textbooks in the section about harmonic motion. See [1], [2], [3], [4]. Edison (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a reason why this is marked as "stub-class, high importance". The article needs work, but the concept is highly notable. — HHHIPPO 10:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's concerns about sourcing and general neglect of the article isn't untrue, but the subject is notable overall as Edison makes clear.LM2000 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And eventually do something with the article. High importance for a good reason even if neglected. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to simple harmonic motion if there's no example of its use outside harmonic motion. We can re-split into Restoring force in the extremely unlikely case that the content about restoring force gets greatly expanded and the simple harmonic motion article gets too long as a consequence. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2014 (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.