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. ✗plicit 12:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanics of planar particle motion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Original Research Graphitr (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is based on original research, as was originally pointed out on the talk page in 2012 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mechanics_of_planar_particle_motion#c-Flau98bert-2012-09-09T15:53:00.000Z-Brews_ohare-2008-10-14T01:41:00.000Z), and does not appear to have significantly change in that regard since then. It appears to have originated from a edit war (also pointed out in the linked comment), rather than being started to elucidate a topic which deserves a full article in its own right. Graphitr (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Original research, maybe, but where exactly do you find this "Original Research"? I see a handful of sources and no ^{[citation needed]} ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, leaning Delete I read the talk page message, but I do see a few problems- an NPOV violation is stated. I see that there still can be original research with the sources- however we will have to double check to make sure it hasn't been fixed. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Aside from the direct quotes, the computations and expositions appear to be original (and, although this does not appear relevant to wikpedia policy, I should say incorrect). I did read through them myself: they were not fixed. The section on "Fictitious forces in polar coordinates" and "two terminologies" is pertinent: the article claims that there are two separate definitions or uses of the term "fictitious force", in particular the centrifugal force - one related to coordinates and the other related to non-inertial frames. More specifically, it argues that centrifugal force terms arise in polar coordinates *in inertial frames*. The citations do not back up these claims. Even if this were edited or flagged for editing, this viewpoint propagates through the entire article, and the numerous uncited computations/expositions. Moreover, it is not clear that this topic requires its own article. Graphitr (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. There might be an encyclopedic topic here, but the page as it stands is a lengthy exercise in POV-pushing and advocacy of non-standard terminology, written in a way that makes it a WP:NOTTEXTBOOK violation. In other words, it's an attempt to write a chapter of a highly idiosyncratic textbook, and thus unsuitable for our purposes. Rescuing it would involve jacking up the title and running a new article beneath. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the comments by XOR'easter. He phrased it very well, it is not the type of article that belongs on Wikipedia. (Whether it is original research does not matter.) Ldm1954 (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2024 (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.