- 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. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 12:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Damping matrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article on a mathematical concept that does not demonstrate independent notability. The one reference is a dead link now, but when it worked it linked to a French language text that (at least from what I could tell) verified this content. A search on "damping matrix" yielded related concepts but not the specific content on this article.
If anyone can find a suitable article to merge this content into, I am willing to withdraw this nomination and recommend a merge. I tried but this content would have been too detailed for most of the articles I came across. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Damping matrices are discussed in detail in many works on structural mechanics such as this. There are different modes or models of damping and we should expect our article to cover these. Deletion would be disruptive to this work and contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Widely used concept that is reliably sourced. --Kkmurray (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Tons of hits in Google Books. (The article needs some cleanup though.) Michael Hardy (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2011 (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.