Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oblique shock

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 of the debate was no consensus. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 01:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THis article does not make any sense.

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparently a mixture of nonense and original research Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though not written in an accessible way, appears to be a real theory. [[1]]. Jasmol 15:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, with the program now. However: Shock wave appears already to cover this area, and the term used elsewhere is "oblique shock wave". Plus this is a partial; duplicate of Oblique shocks (in the same - er - style). Shock wave is not big enough to need this to be split out, IMO. Maybe it's delete this, merge and redirect Oblique shocks? What say you? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oblique shocks doesn't follow the naming conventions. It needs to be Oblique shock (singular). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC
• Keep or Redirect I just removed everything that didn't make sense (all of it) and replaced it with a functional stub. However material here is a copy from shock wave which I've just done a major rewrite of. Thus redirect is probably most appropriate.AKAF 14:47, 11 November 2005 (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.