Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Design of Propeller by Flow Visualization Analysis using MATLAB Simulink


 * 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   delete. Contact me if you want to userfy. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Design of Propeller by Flow Visualization Analysis using MATLAB Simulink

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has multiple issues. It is some sort of essay/tutorial about a specific methodology that can be followed to design a propeller using a software application called "flowviz". The methodology, though, is not even explained in the article, that in its current form just introduces the topic and links to the software application. The creator of the article has also written a note at the top of the lead, asking other editors not to delete the article because it is still a draft "edited heavily", but the last contribution of the creator was eight days ago. Being just a draft in the form of an essay/tutorial, I would suggest a Userfication or a deletion. ► LowLevel (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Way too specialized and the final product, if its creator ever finished it, would be contrary to WP:NOTGUIDE. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * delete, maybe userfy.  It's possible that this could become an article on flowviz, the piece of software used. It would have to demonstrate notability in the usual manner, of course.  The article scope as it stands though is far too narrow to be workable in an encyclopedia. The current condition of the article is also way short of being either finished or even ready for article mainspace. No object to continuing to work on the draft in the draft: namespace or as a user draft though. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks significant independent coverage and Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. I have no objection to having the article saved to someone's userspace so they can work on it.131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2014 (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.