Talk:Hubble Flow

AfD

Why does this article even exist? It is superseded by the much better article Hubble expansion.

P.S. short history of rapid fire events leading up to the AfD:

1. I noticed edits by User:Worldtraveller which I thought much more misleading that previous version by User:RJHall.
2. I reverted to previous version.
3. I attempted to improve wording of that version.
4. I discovered the preexisting article.
5. I decided this one says nothing not said better in the existing article, so AfD'd this rather than proposing a merger.

---CH (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree w/ CH. The AfD page argued that there should be two articles, not one; so here's what I said there:

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 22:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here ('no consenses' - should not rule out a merge or redirect). -Doc (?) 10:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hubble flow is not a standard term

In the archived AfD discussion, User:Worldtraveller claims that Hubble flow is the more commonly used term in the astronomical literature. However, no-one else seems to think that. Indeed, I consulted two standard recent cosmology textbooks, Peacock, Cosmological Physics and Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology, and neither of these even list these terms in the index! Therefore, I think there is no question that Worldtraveller is wrong about this.

I myself wrote most of the current version of Hubble flow before noticing the much better existing article, Hubble expansion. I still think that Hubble flow is redundant. User:Worldtraveller, please put whatever you think is lacking into the existing article (in a carefully chosen place so as not to disrupt the flow) and delete this one. ---CH (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

About the outcome of the AfD: it seems absurd that even I, who wrote most of the current version of the existing article, think it should be merged with the much better Hubble expansion article, except that I think there is really nothing to be merged here. So I feel this article should have been deleted, contrary to the outcome of the AfD. Weird, huh? ---CH (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete or renominate for AfD?

Since I am the author of the present version, which has been largely untouched for some weeks now, and since (as recounted above) after creating this version I realized there is a far superior existing article Hubble expansion which makes this stub entirely superfluous, can I simply delete it myself? Or is it too soon to renominate it for AfD? ---CH (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

We don't want to delete Hubble Flow. Deletion should be limited to titles that should not exist on WP. This is a low traffic article, and there were only four responses to the AfD, and only one vote to keep. If there is material here worthy of saving it should be merged into Hubble's law. Since the author doesn't seem to think there is, the article title simply needs to be redirected to Hubble's law. I will do this shortly if there is no objection. --Blainster 21:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)