Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubble Flow

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc (?) 10:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hubble Flow

This stub is entirely redundant and the title is a nonstandard term. The standard term is "Hubble expansion" and there is already a fine article called Hubble expansion. At the very most we require only a redirect page under the name "Hubble flow". CH (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - it's a standard term - see [1], and compare with [2]. Hubble expansion is a redirect to Hubble's Law. Hubble's law and the Hubble flow are slightly different things and deserve separate articles. Worldtraveller 23:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's come at this a different way. The stub in question doesn't say anything that Hubble expansion doesn't say better. The wording you added was particularly misleading. ---CH (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If you thought my wording was misleading, you can improve it. I can't see why you first reverted my editing, then added some poorly written material, then nominated for AfD, all within 12 minutes, if all you want to do is make it a redirect. You can do that at any time, without AfD. Worldtraveller 00:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted to the version by Hall, then improved the wording, then noticed the preexisting and far superior article. Let's try this a different way. Can you clearly and concisely explain on the talk page of the affected article precisely why you feel Hubble expansion is inadequate? Can you give a citation to a standard cosmology textbook which uses Hubble flow rather than Hubble expansion? Which supports your contention that there is a distinction? ---CH (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Could this be sorted out on the Article talk page as it seems to be an editorial conflict?Capitalistroadster 02:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Capitalistroadster, point taken. If you know how to migrate this gracefully to an RFC rather than a AfD, I won't object to that.---CH (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. The article on Hubble expansion should define what the Hubble flow is, and clearly explain what the difference is. (I personally have no clue as to what the difference is, and having two articles that seem to be talking about the same thing doesn't help me or most enyone else.) If there comes a day when the article one Hubble expansion has an incredibly long section on Hubble flow, then it will merit a split into two distinct articles. Splitting prematurely, however, only leads to chaos, as multiple editors make almost the same, but conflicting/confusing edits in related artciles, resulting in a nasty mess. I've seen this far too often in the math articles; it can and should be avoided in this case. linas 21:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. AFAICT, 'Hubble flow' refers to the same thing as 'Hubble expansion'. The latter term has been around for decades and is clearly standard, but the former is very new and definitely not standard. The two terms refer to one and the same thing (the expansion of the universe); if you're digging for a difference Worldtraveller, I'm afraid you won't really find one. ---Mpatel (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hubble flow is the more commonly used term in the astronomical literature. Hubble Expansion and Hubble Flow are of course different terms for the same thing - what I said was that Hubble expansion currently redirects to Hubble's Law, and the law and the flow are not the same thing. We don't have an article at Hubble expansion, we have a redirect, so it is not correct for Hillman to say there is already a fine article called Hubble expansion. Worldtraveller 12:07, 9 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.