Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ENTROPY GENERATION MINIMIZATION IN LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER 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 in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

ENTROPY GENERATION MINIMIZATION IN LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER FLOW

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This probably could be merged to another article, but as it stands, Wikipedia is not a journal for publishing scientific papers or other scientific material. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 *  Merge Speedy delete as close paraphrase with copyvios.: There is a genuine subject here, but cited only to Bejan's work, and with a title taken directly from a chapter of his book 2.10 of Convection Heat Transfer by Adrian Bejan, 2013, it looks unsustainable. It doesn't seem to be a direct copyvio, nor a piece of self-publishing. As nom says, it could redirect or merge somewhere, perhaps Boundary layer or Laminar flow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per, but the closing sysop should make sure to delete the old link. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:IINFO. First of all, if kept, this would need a significant rewrite since the reader must guess the meaning some of the notations. As far as I can tell, this is a calculation in a specific case under fairly restrictive hypotheses (for instance, "heat flux perpendicular to the plate" sounds dubious - I think it is only valid for low flow speeds compared to heat diffusion, but I should not have to guess). Notability is a problem.
 * I also am uncomfortable with single-sourcing such an article. I know plenty of physics articles (including some where I made significant contributions, mea culpa) lack sources but are tolerated, probably under a stretch of the "common knowledge" (WP:CK) exemption of sourcing (everyone who graduated in physics knows that calculation, no need to cite it). While I can see merit in the view that verifiability is not a big concern in such topics, I think notability should be a big concern though (and that requires citing a textbook). Not every textbook calculation should be kept on WP. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP is not a textbook. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)>
 * Speedy Delete - copyvio of . Smmurphy(Talk) 00:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - if this is a copyvio then of course you'd be right. But I can't see any direct copying from that book, which I already named above. Which part(s) are copyvios? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All over but slightly scrambled, I think not scrambled enough. I'll quote sections:
 * ''The heat flux {\displaystyle {\ddot {q}}} {\displaystyle {\ddot {q}}} is assumed to be uniform on both side and free stream is parallel to the plate as shown in fig 1.
 * Fig 1.Laminar boundary layer flow on a flat plate with uniform heat flux on both sides.
 * Is the material at and directly above figure 2.14. Equation 1.1 in the article is equation 2.144 in the book, and the next paragraph in the article copies the first sentence from the following two paragraphs in the book. Then the article just copies from the book, starting with . The conclusion in the article is the material immidiately before, including, and after equation 2.148 in the book.Smmurphy(Talk) 13:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, then in theory we have the option of paraphrasing, pruning, or speedy deleting. Since the first two won't work here, I suggest you CSD it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2016 (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.