Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy–depth relationship in a rectangular channel


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  03:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Energy–depth relationship in a rectangular channel

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

Original research by, who created it in their user page and moved into article space then expanded by SPI  , probably the same person Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. There are offline sources and a couple online ones listed at the bottom of the article. The page has existed in mainspace for the last 12 years, and it does need inline citations. Without engaging with the sources, I am not seeing a strong argument here that the article is in fact original research or non-notable. We need an in-depth analysis of the sources to prove the claim of original research.4meter4 (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that the bunch of publications at the bottom support the text and I dont think anybody is in a posittion to analyze this text. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I have engineering training to understand some of this, but I don't understand what makes it an encyclopedia article. Unfortunately, like in Articles for deletion/Dimensionless momentum-depth relationship in open-channel flow, a professor had their students write about how to solve particular types of engineering problems, including making the diagrams in the article, but the professor did not ensure they wrote an article for Wikipedia with descriptions of what makes this a notable topic. Rephrasing textbook explanations of the steps to derive certain relationships is not what goes here. Two of the citations are just this professor's class notes!! Reywas92Talk 21:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect, to Open-channel flow. The current article fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. SailingInABathTub 🛁 09:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This isn't Engineering-pedia, this appears to have been copied verbatim from a textbook. Only an engineering student will need this. It does nothing to explain what it is or why we use it etc. High-level mathematics is fine to be included, but you still need to summarize what you're explaining to people and how it relates to the average Joe. This is another example of those articles that are too long to be BS, but a lack of context and sourcing makes it look out of place in a general encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for this textbook page. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:29, 3 November 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.