Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational wave dynamics Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Computational_wave_dynamics

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 delete as a copyvio. No prejudice against re-creation with proper content. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Computational wave dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable: "computational wave dynamics" about 4 times mentioned in Google Scholar and about 9 times in Googe Books. Crowsnest (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It's clearly current encyclopedic knowledge. scope_creep talk 01:42, 03 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This branch of science/math must surely be notable. The few Google hits may be due to different terminology being used to describe it (the article currently uses both "computational wave dynamics" and "water wave dynamics", and maybe there are others also). Peacock (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See e.g. Computational fluid dynamics#Two-phase flow. "Water wave dynamics" is a broader subject (like fluid dynamics and computational fluid dynamics), since it is not limited to computational methods. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The lead of the article is (mainly) a copy and paste of [1]. Without it nothing substantial on the possible subject is left, so I nominated the article for speedy deletion. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:41, 3 September 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.