Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back pressure


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator per WP:HEY causa sui (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Back pressure

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Contested prod. The vast, vast majority of the article is unsourced. Furthermore, it has been tagged for sources since 2012. We should have an article on this topic, but in its current form there is no article here after all the unsourced material is removed. Per WP:BURDEN we do not maintain unverifiable content, nor expect that people removing unverifiable content provide the sources themselves. It is better to remove unverifiable content than wait longer for sources to be added. causa sui (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 *  Keep (if sources are added)  If the topic is notable and sources exist, add the sources instead of starting an AFD discussion. I would search for and add in the supposed sources suggested by the deletion contester (and replace the line For an extremely detailed description of these phenomena see Design and Simulation of Two-Stroke Engines (1996), by Prof. Gordon Blair of Queen's University Belfast, pub. SAE International, ISBN 978-1-56091-685-7.), but I am unfamiliar with the physics field, so I don't know what exactly to add. considering you were the one who contested the PROD and assuming you are familiar with this topic and know that the sources exits, maybe you could add them in? It's usually preferred that the PROD contester improves the article or resolves the issue when removing the deletion tag. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to keep per WP:HEY, the article has been improved. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep provided suitable sources can be found. It's also a hugely important concept in column chromatography, since the rate at which liquid chromatography can be carried out is limited by the balance or what pressure a pump can reasonably produce versus the back-pressure created by trying to get the required flow through the chromatography column. Loads has been written about the subject. The problem is trying to pick out one or two really useful general references in an objective fashion. I'll have a go. I think there's some good stuff in LCGC magazine, which is a refereed and reliable half-way house between trade-magazine and academic journal, and would be suitable. The article needs work, lots of it, but there is promise. Elemimele (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * for reference, here's an article on back-pressure in LC chromatography by Ron Majors, a staff author of LCGC ; although he starts off by calling it just "pressure", he's slipped into using the chromatographer's normal jargon of "back pressure" within the first paragraph. Although the current WP article discusses exhaust manifolds and engines more than chromatography, the basic concepts are actually quite similar, and chromatography is a big field, as deserving of mention as engines. Here's another article that deals with how chromatographers and column-designers describe and manage back-pressure, using kinetic plots: . Here's an example of a whole class of article on back pressure, articles written by manufacturers to help their customers: . These articles aren't necessarily written to promote the manufacturer in question, but it's harder to cite articles of this sort without favouring one manufacturer, and we'd have to be careful they weren't promotional. Nevertheless, the sheer number that exist (every manufacturer has one!) indicates the importance of the concept. Elemimele (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, due to significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources.   These sources are now cited in the article.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment by nom "This is an important topic" and "Sources exist" are not valid reasons to maintain unsourced content in Wikipedia articles. --causa sui (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been improved by adding sourced content and reliable in depth sources--nice work, Elemimele and SailingInABathTub. Those additions show notability per WP:GNG and refute the assertion that the article cannot be improved. Remaining problems, such as removing contested material, are a matter of routine editing, not deletion. Hence keep. -- 20:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If notability or the assertion that the article can not be improved were raised as reasons to delete the article, that was not from me. --causa sui (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2022 (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.