Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/External flow

External flow

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
This is covered by the preface and the whole of chapter 12 of ISBN 9781498724432. Uncle G (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear violation of our rule against dictionary defintions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SailingInABathTub and Uncle G, the article needs to be updated but it seems like it can be brought up to the standards laid out in WP:RS. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 06:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Furthermore, @Johnpacklambert: 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]