Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salah's Model for Diesel Engine Intake Airflow

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salah's Model for Diesel Engine Intake Airflow

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Salah's Model for Diesel Engine Intake Airflow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No independent source. Dependent on the authors own research paper. Rht bd (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The only source relating to the actual article content is the research paper that it is nominally about, and thus certainly is neither independent nor a secondary source. Of the others: one is a documentation of all the authors publications (not the only citations of his publications are from others of his publications at least according to google scholar), the other is simply a documentation of the different components of an engine. As such the article decidely fails WP:GNG. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 16:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no independent sources Laura240406 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The (only) paper cited here on the topic has one citation. This means that the general scientific community has not considered this model to be notable. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Adeendum After reading the page Nano-I-beam which was created by the same editor I have a strong suspicion that this is the authors own research work. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and many of the authors edits have been adding their papers to articles. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2025 (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.