Deletion of Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside)

Comment: It appears that there is no such thing as a "Gibbs-Heaviside vector".  http://www.google.com/search?q=%22GIbbs-Heaviside+vector%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 This google search returns 91 results, but excluding the obvious cases "Gibbs-Heaviside vector analysis" and "Gibbs-Heaviside vector algebra" yields http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Gibbs-Heaviside+vector%22+-%22GIbbs-Heaviside+vector+analysis%22+-%22vector+algebra%22&btnG=Search only 6 hits, one of which is to the Wikipedia page, and for the others "Gibbs-Heaviside vector" is a modifier on some other word, such as "calculus" or "cross product" (which was actually invented by Lagrange, but I digress).  Since the term "Gibbs-Heaviside vector" to refer to an actual type of vector appears to have been invented by this article, the article clearly needs to rethink its choice of nomenclature as it relies exclusively on a  and a rather idiosyncratic view of history
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: If this AfD and the earlier one on vector (physical) are being and have been employed as "battle grounds", then dispute resolution should have been used instead. #Wikipedia is not a battleground|#BATTELGROUND
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: into Vector (geometric) or '''Rename''' to something like History of vectors. It has very little content other than an outline made from section titles, but the section titles suggest that this article, if fleshed out, would be a historical article. That is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. However, given the lack of actual content at present, it could also be merged into a history section in the main vector article. If the history section there expands too much, then it can be spun out again following |summary style
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)