Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navier-Stokes equations with Estakhr's Relativistic Correction


 * 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. joe deckertalk 01:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Navier-Stokes equations with Estakhr&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no independent reliable secondary sources discussing this equation. The only scholar hit for "Estakhr's relativistic correction" is this 2015 abstract, with zero GS citations, written by Estakhr. Notability requires in depth treatment in independent reliable secondary sources. The cited abstract is a primary source, that is not independent of the originator. Furthermore, conference proceedings typically have minimal peer review, so I do not think we can accept this source as factually reliable. Furthermore, I do not believe that the discussion of Estakhr's relativistic version of hydrodynamics is consistent with maintaining a neutral point of view. Relativistic hydrodynamics is a mature subject. For example, see the review article Gourgoulhon (2006) An introduction to relativistic hydrodynamics (which has been cited 65 times on Google Scholar). No mention at all is made of Estakhr's work, so an article on this correction appears to be assigning undue weight to a fringe view not held by the scientific mainstream. Lastly, the article was created by an evident WP:SPA, who likely has a WP:COI in this area. The article Articles for deletion/Estakhr's Constant (physics) was also created by the same editor, and deleted as a hoax. An IP sockpuppet has been lobbying to add similar material to the article Navier-Stokes equations, which is now semiprotected due to this disruption. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG in any case. shoy (reactions) 15:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (duh!), and warn creator. The best thing that can be said about the inclusion of an "energy flux" (which energy? heat?) such as done in the article is that it is dimensionally consistent (I really expected it not to be the case). Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I have been unable to find secondary sourcing for the Estakhr variant, so this article fails notability thresholds per WP:GNG. We could use an article on relativistic fluid dynamics, but this isn't it. --Mark viking (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could only find one primary source and share the WP:NPOV concerns as well. DeVerm (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Nothing here to keep. BMK (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC).
 * SNOW Delete as there's simply nothing actually convincing from both the listed information and sources, nothing to suggest the convincing notability. SwisterTwister   talk  19:44, 1 July 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.