Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applied mathematics in industry

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.

This user has been creating a walled garden of articles consisting of extremely detailed derivations/formulae of various applied mathematics and physics topics, written as a textbook or course solution manual would. Wikipedia is not the place for such detailed content. Contested PRODS – Train2104 (t • c) 00:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Borderline nonsense as written. bd2412 T 03:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all This is definitely an attempt to write something like a course solution manual. This first article above is the introduction for these other articles in the manner of a textbook. The topics already have generalized treatment in encyclopedic articles in an encyclopedia known as (wait for it...) Wikipedia. Then there are notable examples of the various theories already on Wikipedia such as the Eiffel Tower and the Ferris wheel (see Euler–Bernoulli beam theory). Wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate trivial collections of information (WP:IINFO) and is not a textbook. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having had a look at this article, I see it is a single badly written paragraph, written in such poor English that I am inclined to deletion of this article. Vorbee (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all variously as unsourced, stretching a single source into multiple articles, poor English, WP:OR (especially the doodled diagram File:KirchhoffPlate.jpg used in Pure bending of plates), an attempt at creating a book in mainspace, or being beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Cabayi (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as WP:FORKs of existing articles on the subject. In addition as others have noted, they are uncited, poorly written, and not illustrated. We already have much better coverage than this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The first one appears to be a recreation of the deleted Applied mathematics and physics for industry. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. as per nom. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Possibly there could be encyclopedic articles on these topics. What we have here is not helpful as a start towards that goal. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these topics may be encyclopedic, and content and examples may be usefully transwikied to wikiversity. But I don't think these are useful here as they stand. "walled garden" does not matter though! Others can link as they wish. I have added Finite element analysis of pressure vessel to the proposal to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note The author has copied much of the material in question to User:Luděk Sosnovec/sandbox. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:10, 8 December 2017 (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.