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. This is about an alleged term in microprocessor technology, not in actual aerodynamics. The content is unsourced (WP:V), and, sorry to say it, but "I think I've heard of it" is just about the least persuasive "keep" argument imaginable. The policy-based outcome is therefore a clear consensus to delete the article. Sandstein 10:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodynamic number[edit]

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

No notability shown. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

week keep I think i've heard of it however I don't prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No google books or google scholar hits for the meaning given in the article. Standard google hits have the phrase as part of the larger phrase "aerodynamic number size distributions" but I couldn't see any that related to this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2014 (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.