Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pressure extension
- 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 delete; if a expert comes, I will reconsider. Singularity 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pressure extension (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
"Pressure extension" seems to be a known term in the engineering literature on natural gas. As a very specific topic, the article might be worth a merger to pressure measurement or similar articles. However, the present article is not suited for a merger. Its sources are very imprecisely cited, and it is almost incomprehensible (not even the symbols in the formulas are defined completely). In search of an expert, I contacted WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Technology, and WikiProject Energy, plus the original author; but I reached no one who could do a cleanup, or say where the article should be merged. So, as a last resort, I propose to delete the article as unverifiable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems like trying to get expert attention and do a rewrite would be more appropriate than sending it here. Artw 18:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As already stated, I tried, but did not find any expert who could even tell me whether this topic is notable, let alone a rewrite. --B. Wolterding 09:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Delete, on the asumption that if it turns out to be important someone will cretae a better article on it. Artw 15:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As already stated, I tried, but did not find any expert who could even tell me whether this topic is notable, let alone a rewrite. --B. Wolterding 09:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reads like a random extract from an engineering manual. Without sources or more context, it fails WP:V. Leibniz 13:19, 25 August 2007 (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.