Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-inertial reference frame
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus for the merging. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Non-inertial reference frame
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Non-inertial reference frame (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)
Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.
- Proposed merge of Non-inertial reference frame into Inertial reference frame
wide overlap; cannot discuss either one without the other. fgnievinski (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support per nominator's rationale, the readers are best served by a single article. FaviFake (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support per nomination.
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Physics-related AfD discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- Unsigned comment added in Special:Diff/1350376918. FaviFake (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, on the grounds that the mechanics of Non-inertial reference frame are sufficiently complicated and distinctive that the readers are best served by discussing the topics separately. What is warranted is a re-organization of material so that only a WP:SUMMARY is left at Inertial frame of reference#Non-inertial frames. That can be done through normal editing practices and doesn't need a merge. Klbrain (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. They have been separate articles for twenty years. The more recent addition of material to Inertial reference frame that should have been added to the other (rotating reference frames, etc) does not change the need for two articles to cover the topics in ways less confusing to readers. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Non-inertial reference frames are an important topic in and of themselves with there being a lot one can say about them. Saying that they defined in ref to inertial ref frames is like saying Negative number is just not a Positive real numbers; both are notable and have their own page. OpenScience709 (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- 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.