Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard assumptions in astrodynamics

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 delete. JForget 00:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard assumptions in astrodynamics[edit]

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

Procedural nomination — I found this while deleting expired PRODs and I don't think that it should be deleted unless after discussion. Rationale for PROD is "Per the talk page, the article title is misleading, the article is based on dubious and perhaps false and misleading assertions, the content is too narrowly defined and there are no sources." Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know you can just remove the prod without bringing it to AfD, right? That said, Delete or merge because without context, this isn't very useful. It can go into n-body problem. Gigs (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that, but it did seem rather unworthy of staying as an article. I decline PRODs all the time. Nyttend (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I added the prod and still see no reason to keep this article. But I'd be happy to change my mind if a better use can be found for this content.—RJH (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated on the talk page, the whole basis of the article, that "For most of the problems in astrodynamics involving two bodies m1 and m2 standard assumptions are usually the following" is (a) unsourced and (b) dubious. A number of other articles link to this, so tidy-up work will be needed if it is deleted; user Norbeck (talk · contribs) has offered on the talk age to undertake that, and I will help if necessary. JohnCD (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is essentially an unsourced essay.B.Wind (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gravitational_two-body_problem. Ruslik_Zero 07:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is scientifically sound as far as it goes but it does not go very far and its relation to cognate subjects is not clear. It looks like a candidate for a merge but some skill will be needed in making a seamless merger. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Aren't they the conditions in which Kepler's laws apply? I have no idea how they are normally called (if there's a name to refer to them as a whole at all), but the article could be moved or merged somewhere, rather than deleted. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 09:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The orbital motion article covers the topic in general, and has a section on assumptions.—RJH (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Wikipedia is not a teaching or how to guide; this is essentially a thumb guide to solving astrodynamical problems. FellGleaming (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone copied their lecture notes onto wp. Not a good idea. Szzuk (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2010 (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.