Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbulence modeling

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 speedy keep in accordance with WP:SK ground 1: the nominator agrees the article should be redirected instead of deleted, and nobody else favours deletion. NAC—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Turbulence modeling

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

The page Computational_fluid_dynamics#Turbulence_models already introduces turbulence models, describes their classification, and lists some of the most common turbulence models
Turbulence models are primarily a computational subject - analytical turbulence models are rare or nonexistent - so a description of turbulence models is most appropriately maintained on a page related to computational modeling
Any analytical approaches to turbulence (e.g. scaling analyses) should not be considered "modeling" and can be considered under the heading of turbulence theory; this information should be presented at either turbulence or turbulence kinetic energy, or some other article
There is no need for the computational fluid dynamics article to link to this Turbulence modeling article, because it links directly to the page associated with each turbulence model
Turbulence models such as LES or RANS are sufficiently described on their respective pages (each linked to by the computational fluid dynamics#Turbulence models page), and any additional effort going into an explanation of these models should go on their respective pages; otherwise it leads to bloat, as well as scattered and duplicated effort and information Charlesreid1 (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article. Per the reasons above; this article reproduces information and functionality already fulfilled by computational fluid dynamics and turbulence articles. --Charlesreid1 (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This should be handled with a redirect, if necessary, per WP:REDIR. All of the cited articles are roughly start class with multiple issues. I would suggest moving them all toward C and B class and as you do, a consensus will develop as to what goes where. --Kkmurray (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I agree that a redirect would be better than an outright deletion. ~~However, I can't find any policies regarding making an existing article into a redirect. I'm not sure how that would work.~~ Found it here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD --Charlesreid1 (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever your arguments for deletion, this is a highly notable topic and warrants its own article. There are number of books and thousands of scholarly articles published on this topic. See here, about 15,000 books discuss this topic. Salih (talk)

Keep Computational fluid dynamics is already about 30K which is big enough per WP:SIZE. Turbulence modeling is quite notable as entire books are written about it such as Fundamentals of turbulence modeling. The former topic should therefore introduce the second which can then go into more detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2010 (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.