Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phase lag (rotorcraft)

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. J04n(talk page) 10:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phase lag (rotorcraft)

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

Unfortunately the author has got entirely the wrong idea as to why the control inputs to rotor swash-plates are 90° out of phase. Best to start again WITH a clue. Petebutt (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 27. Snotbot t • c » 16:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's a valid topic, but is wrong, fixing the article is preferable to deleting. WP:SOFIXIT Roodog2k (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a couple of secondary references describing phase lag and rewrote the article from those references. It is shorter, but hopefully on a more solid basis. In my search for references, phase lag looks to be a notable topic and it is an effect to be accounted for in all modern helicopters. A notable topic, per WP:GNG and an article with surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, suggests that the article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The version nominated for deletion did have issues but the subject does appear to be notable, having multiple third-party sources showing notability. The issues with the article seemed to have been solved by Mark viking's rewrite, but even without the rewrite, the issues with the article were those that could be solved without needing deletion. - Sudo Ghost 12:11, 28 March 2013 (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.