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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. It appears that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination with their keep !vote below, and no outstanding delete !votes are present. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jet engine performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete as unsourced. See talk:

This has hung around since 2009. The "solution" was first to blank the article. It was then "improved" at Wikiversity, although that version is still unsourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, on basis that source included in article (Kerrebrock, Jack L. (1992), Aircraft Engines and Gas Turbines, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts USA. ISBN 0 262 11162 4) appears to be the source for material in the article though there are not inline references and it is perhaps too textbook-y, not encyclopedic in tone. That book appears to be a textbook treatment. If there is this textbook, then there would be others, and textbooks are reliable tertiary/secondary sources. If I am wrong on much here, i'll change my vote, but that's how it looks to me now. --doncram 12:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. From worldcat, another source establishing notability of the topic would be: Aircraft propulsion and gas turbine engines, by Ahmed F El-Sayed, Boca Raton : CRC Press, ©2008. "Summary: 'Aircraft Propulsion and Gas Turbine Engines' covers aircraft engines and engine components in both power generation and marine applications. Offering a historical overview, this textbook contains a unique classification of all types of engine, examining the different performance parameters of each concept."

• keep per WP:IMPERFECT. This is an obviously notable topic and there's a vast amount of source material (just on my own bookshelves) to support it. Blanking the article (as was done) is not the way forward. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i am confused, i thought you nominated this for deletion. If this AFD is just to pre-empt someone else from nominating it for real, I am not sure that is helpful. I've objected to "fake" AFDs in some other cases. At the article's Talk page i see old discussion from 2009. And in the edit history of the article, i see a blanking back in 2009. Not sure if there is recent discussion leading to this AFD, though, if so where? Anyhow, could this AFD be closed as there is no one now wanting to see it deleted? Or if there is anyone, please notify them and make the discussion happen. --doncram 18:25, 14 March 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.