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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobility number

[edit]

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

The term "nobility number" as used in this article does not appear to be notable. The phrase "mobility Reynolds number" appears in exactly one scientific publication (the one listed as a source). This publication appeared in June this year and has not (yet) received any citations.

The term "mobility number" appears in other places in the literature, where it can mean a number of things, which as far as I can tell are at best only loosely related to what is described in this article.T R 12:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC) T R 12:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created this has been adding citations to papers written by this "Shiva P. Pudasaini", to lots of pre-existing articles, and failing to engage meaningfully when challenged. I don't profess to understand mechanics at this level, but it looks like it's a delete, unless someone else speaks up in its defence. Morwen - Talk 12:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No currency in the field. This exists solely in the work of Shiva Pudasaini, first appearing in a 2012 Journal of Geophysical Research paper as a novel coinage. Essentially, he takes a slightly different approach to modeling granular flow in large mass wasting events, and this new constant appears. The Iverson and Denlinger (2001) reference given in the article doesn't talk about this topic at all; indeed, Pudasaini notes that in the paper. No one else seems to have adopted the term, and Pudasaini's paper is not widely cited, so this falls quite a bit short of having significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept of mobility, the ability to flow in the presence of hindrances such as impurities and collisions, is a common one in physics, for instance, Electron mobility in semiconductors. But I agree, looking at the literature, this is the definition of a single author, Shiva P. Pudasaini. Furthermore, there are a number of different definitions of mobility in geophysics, and the definition of mobility number given in the article is certainly not the most common.Mark viking (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2012 (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.