Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cfd analysis of evacuated solar still

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. Sandstein 22:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd analysis of evacuated solar still

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

This article appears to be about a topic different from the article title, although both topics, the title and the content appear to have limited sources all tied to a single author or no sources or sources not related to what this article appears to be primarily about (either guess). The article was deleted before for being original research, but I cannot understand the article well enough to discern if there is any real research. I can't see how to help it.MicroPaLeo (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MicroPaLeo (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. -- 120.23.177.150 (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics for an expert opinion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, posted there, categorized in CFD, and added FD expert needed category. MicroPaLeo (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Came here from the FD task force request. This looks like a student essay or perhaps a summary of a term project, both original research. The device discussed is an evacuated tube collector. The one equation is a simple one for thermal flux; there is no CFD in it. The first paper referenced is a real one [1] and seems to be the basis for the essay. While it is valid research, a numerical simulation of detailed variations of a type of evacuated tube collector is not a notable subject--it is too specific to have merited any in-depth secondary literature as far as I can tell. Thus even if this whole article was rewritten to be encyclopedic, the topic fails WP:GNG. Deletion seems the best course. --Mark viking (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Another of tide articles also contained non-CFD equations. I will try to find and tag all of them. MicroPaLeo (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.