Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic energy problem in open-channel flow Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Classic_energy_problem_in_open-channel_flow

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 Transwiki to wikiversity. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Classic energy problem in open-channel flow

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

This is a textbook-like guide to solve an engineering/science problem, and does not fit within the scope of WP (see WP:NOTMANUAL). It might very well fit into another Wikimedia project, e.g. Wikiversity. Crowsnest (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A "how to" article of unencyclopedic nature. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Modify. The introduction section including the basic equation is encyclopedic. The several examples of calculations that follow are not; they belong in a textbook, which Wikipedia is not. I propose keeping the introductory text and delete all sections and their component text from Lowering of sluice gate in an open-channel flow through General comments about the transition from choke flow. Truthanado (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory section is just Bernoulli's principle. Why is it needed to duplicate that? -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I exported it to v:Classic energy problem in open-channel flow. Continue on. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 01:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, which Sidelight12 (talk · contribs) has already done. The material is worthwhile, it's just not what WP is about. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2014 (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.