Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuessner effect

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The result was keep: Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Non-administrator closure. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Kuessner effect

Kuessner effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This should be a scientific/engineering term. However, searching for "Kuessner effect" gives no hits in Google Books, and only one hit in Google Scholar. While for an eponymous term one expects a significant coverage in the scientific literature. So: not notable, in my opinion Crowsnest (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep While I am not an IEEE member the following appears relevant: "Nonlinear output feedback control of underwater vehicle propellers ...Kuessner effect (gust). In this paper, we are considering a deeply submerged vessel ... Kuessner effect, which is caused by a propeller in gust, will ap- ... ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/48/18135/00838987.pdf?arnumber=838987 " [1] refers to "Kuessner effect", and so on. Books relating to Naval Architecture and related fields are mainly classified, by the way. Collect (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it is relevant, but it is only one. For an eponymous term to be notable, one expects more than just one article using this phrase. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• In fact, filtering out the start of Kuessner effect: "In Marine Dynamics, the Kuessner effect is an unlinear effect" as well as references to wikipedia copies, gives this Google Web search result. Only three hits, of which two are still copies of the wikipedia article. The remaining one is the IEEE paper you mentioned. -- Crowsnest (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• I do not know what to do with your remark regarding classified material. Inclusion in Wikipedia requires verifiability, while classified material is in general not verifiable. -- Crowsnest (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable eponymous term. Doesn’t matter the single paper which mentions this phrase is an IEEE article. I would have !voted as keep had there been at least a couple of papers that uses this phrase. Salih (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as per the findings of Edcolins. Salih (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. THF (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Abstain. THF (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. A search for this term using Credo Reference (250+ reference works in full-text) turns up nothing. Credo will find main entries (definitions) as well as passing mentions inside an entry. Even a search of "Kuessner" by itself results in zero hits. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep in deference to further research, justification, and bolstering of the case to keep by my betters! I should have done some research using variant transcription of Kuessner to Kussner (Küssner). Meh. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unless the effect is described under a different name. Nonlinear instabilities are important to fluid dynamics. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Special character kudos to Edcolins. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• DeleteKeep per nomsufficient citations added by Edcolins. OlYeller^Talktome 19:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Typo/variant spelling of "Küssner effect" (also see "Kussner effect"), [2] (pdf page 3, 1956 NACA technical note), [3] (September 2008 paper), [4] (pdf page 13, referring to three pages of this 1971 NATO manual). The Küssner effect seems to be somewhat linked to the Küssner function, which returns 200 Ghits, see for instance [5]. More library research might reveal other interesting sources. Seems very technical but notable enough to keep.--Edcolins (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Further note (useful when checking notability): "U-umlaut is frequently replaced with the two-letter combination "ue"" (source: Ü). --Edcolins (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Adding this one [6], this makes five sources spanning more than six decades. --Edcolins (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a {{resuce}} tag to the article in light of these references. OlYeller^Talktome 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Withdraw Excellent work, Edcolins! What remains is to incorporate these references and a proper description of the effect into the article (as well as move to the correct name). -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I added these references to the article, and rephrased the stub article. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and add some extra template boxes.--Sloane (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per terrific work done by Edcolins and Crowsnest. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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.