Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/External 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 07:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

External flow

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is covered by the preface and the whole of chapter 12 of ISBN 9781498724432. Uncle G (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete a clear violation of our rule against dictionary defintions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per and, the article needs to be updated but it seems like it can be brought up to the standards laid out in WP:RS. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 06:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Verifiability guidelines mandate that all articles have sources. People should not vote to keep based on sources until they have bothered to incorporate the sources into the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a content guideline, not a deletion guideline. If articles existed at George Washington or Computer that lacked sources, this would not justify deletion; the fact that an article lacks sources at some point is not an indication that it's non-notable or cannot be sourced. jp×g 06:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the comment about "bothering to incorporating sources" seems a bit inaccurate; I've spent the majority of today searching for sources and incorporating into articles from this enormous batch nomination, and have only gotten through a few of them. The issue is not that people "don't bother" to reference these articles, it's that it is impossible to do this at a rate that keeps up with high-volume "delete" !votes. It's usually quite straightforward to find these (often as easy as a simple Google search), incorporating them into the article as inline citations and formatting the references properly takes much more time than the thirty to fifty seconds necessary to !vote "Delete". jp×g 06:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, if an article existed at George Washington or Computer that lacked sources, I would vote 'Delete', as even if the subject is notable, who knows if the information about the subject is accurate? It's potentially quite dangerous and I'd prefer no article (for now - able to be recreated in the future) than an unverified one. Just my two cents. :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumably, it would be quite easy and simple to find a WP:RS mentioning the existence of computers, and certainly less effort than nominating an AfD, requiring people to discuss it for seven days, requiring someone to close it, and then requiring yet more people to realize someday that there was no article about computers and create one (with the pallor of a failed AfD hanging over them the whole time). jp×g 06:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. A cursory search revealed five fluid mechanics papers mentioning and using the term, which I have added as references, with appropriate inline citations. jp×g 06:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: six papers. jp×g 06:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. An article without sources is an article to improve, as per the foundations of Wikipedia. If there are no sources/citations. that's something to improve upon, not necessarily something to strike down or remove. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There are now references. It would be nicer if they were included as foot notes supporting specific statements in the text instead of just slapped on at the end. When I made the statement above I am 99% sure there had not yet been any sources added to the article. One can not attack me earlier for not having the cleavoyance to see what will happen later. This is all the more true because I can show you multiple discussions at AfD where those wanting to keep never bothered to add anything to the article at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsure. This has a bit of the feeling to me of an article that slaps two commonly-used keywords together ("external" and "flow") and in such cases we shouldn't argue for notability merely based on the existence of many sources that happen to juxtapose the same two keywords. Is this really a notable subtopic of fluid dynamics? If so, for this kind of subject, we should be able to find textbook sources that list it as a subtopic among other kinds of flow, rather than the kind of poor sourcing (various specific primary sources about specific flow computations rather than this general topic) that we currently have. Uncle G's book source is much more convincing, but it's still only one source, and it's hard to tell whether its organization of the topic is idiosyncratic or standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, there is significant coverage in multiple independent WP:RS.
 * 1) - This book has a whole chapter on the subject, Chapter 15: External Flow.
 * 2) - This book also has a whole chapter on the subject, Chapter 8: External Flows.
 * 3) - This book has another whole chapter on the subject, Chapter 3: External Flow: Fluid Dynamic Forces Acting on Moving Bodies.
 * 4) This book has yet another whole chapter on the subject, Chapter 20: Flow past immersed objects.
 * 5) - This book has a section on the subject, 9.1 General External Flow Characteristics.


 * 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.