Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specific pump power

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specific pump power

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

Can't find any sources for this, seems like a duplicate of Specific Fan Power Benboy00 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As written it IS a tedious physics discussion that might make sense to certain scholars, and IS NOT a clear definition of the property that someone would expect to find in an encyclopedia. If we could re-write it as the second and not the first I think it would stay. I would assume notability unless it's a made up term. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found some academic sources (now included in article). A useful concept in it's field SpaceInnovader (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability clearly established with the sources found by SpaceInnovader. The next alternate grounds for deletion would be WP:NOTJOURNAL. It's a little science-heavy, but I have no knowledge of the field and there didn't seem anything in it too complicated. The initial paragraph is fairly clear as suggested. Finally, regarding being a duplicate of Specific fan power, the equation is not merely a substitute, and there is a substantial different usage. I think it is more than capable of being its own article - a merge might be possible, but is certainly not necessary and thus should not be an answer given here. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem for me is that it's basically identical to Specific fan power, but with the words relating to "fan" changed to "pump". Maybe it should be merged instead? Benboy00 (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I considered mooting that, but the sources give significant distinct consideration for both. Additionally density and flow-efficiency considerations are different.

I'm not saying that you couldn't do a good joint article, but this article can stand on its own feet - therefore it shouldn't be the AfD that decides merging. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm very uncomfortable with a suggestion above to "delete" made on the basis of the text being "a tedious physics discussion that might make sense to certain scholars". Sorry but most scientific articles are bound to appear "tedious" and possibly mysterious to readers not familiar with the science. We certainly must make Wikipedia as readable as possible by as many people as possible, but, as Einstein (is supposed to have) said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -The Gnome (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. A technical article being intimidating might be an argument for revising it, but not for deleting it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per sources. That it's scientific is hardly a reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources show notability. The lead makes the general concept somewhat clear. Beyond that it gets very technical, but it's a technical concept so that should be fine (see arguments per The Gnome). LittlePuppers (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2018 (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.