Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prandtl–Glauert singularity

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prandtl–Glauert singularity

The article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It is confusing and does not comply with WP:NOTMANUAL #7 which states an article "should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field...(and)...should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader.” The article has had various cleanup type tags on it for more than three years, but it is still virtually incomprehensible, largely perhaps because no-one seems to know how to fix it. A visit to the article’s talk page will show concerns that other editors have voiced also.

Support as nom. Moriori (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could certainly be improved, but it's not a disaster as it stands. The topic is notable, and deletion is not a great step towards improving the article. Djr32 (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quoting motivations of Djr32. --Ma c'ero,I'm here! 11:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Djr32, and nominator forgot to quote "Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reade" - it says in the lead and the initial sections. Christian75 (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The lede is now good but the rest of the article is written atrociously. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The nominator - a editor of over ten years' experience and an admin for over eight - should be aware of WP:NOEFFORT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. However, the nomination of this article for deletion is, in fact, based on exactly those grounds: that the article is a mess and nobody is fixing it. As it is therefore not based on any policy-based reason for deletion, the result should be a close and a {{trout}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. -- 101.119.14.211 (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Review of unsteady transonic aerodynamics] article has a section on the singularity and in other sections discusses it's impact and relation to other singularities. This topic also occurs in textbooks, such as [1]. Beyond the technical definition of the term, Prandtl–Glauert singularity has come to be associated with the cloud of condensation occuring as an aircraft goes sonic; this has lead to use of the term in popular literature, such as Tom Clancy's Endwar and in numerous illustrations of the phenomenon. It's clear that the technical theoretical singularity along with the dramatic vapor cones are a notable topic. The article itself could use better sourcing, and it is not clear to me that this needs to be a breakout article from the parent Prandtl–Glauert transformation article, but neither of these are issues that would require deletion. A notable topic and surmountable article problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not seeing anything that would justify deletion under NOTMANUAL (or any other guideline for that matter). In fact, as a layperson, I can understand at least the first sections of the article reasonably well. (The singularity in the particular linear model of gas dynamics leads to infinite pressures as an aerofoil approaches the speed of sound. The singularity does not occur in the fully non-linear model since there is a non-linear term in the model that becomes non-negligible at such speeds.) It would certainly benefit from some work, but that's no reason to delete the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2013 (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.