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. The "keep" opinions do not address how this document is notable in terms of Wikipedia policy, rather than just important for certain purposes. Sandstein 11:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NACA Report No. 106[edit]

NACA Report No. 106 (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)

no evidence of particular notability . I can't find in Google Scholar that it was ever referred to -- the coverage there isn't complete for something like this published back in 1921, but if it were widely used there should have been something. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – No more notable than hundreds of other NACA papers or indeed thousands of scientific papers in general. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These NACA reports are at a historically significant point in the development of aerodynamics, and engineering generally. There are also only a few of them published as 'reports' in this sense. NACA researched and recorded a lot, only a few hundred ever went this far – and we have twelve left here. So this series represents the peak of their work.

I'm also disappointed that, once again, this deletion of clearly "delete all of NACA" is being done by trying to snipe them off one-by-one. (see User talk:Raymondwinn, where eight have been prodded) If the goal is, "The published work of NACA has no place in an encyclopedia", then come out and say that.

These articles are not very good (and WP:JUNK still isn't policy). They do not explain the significance of the work, who carried it out, how the work was done in the context of a 1920s research lab with no electronics or data logging, nor do they explain the ongoing significance of these early studies in such fields. But that's a question of writing, not the article scope. We could, and should, produce some very good educational articles around these reports. But that's, as always, finding time for decent and knowledgeable editors, rather than wasting their time at AfDs to defend the basic concept. WP, if it still retains any encyclopedic goal, is not served by deleting these in the meantime, even if they're pretty dry reading as is. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the sound of it, all of such reports could be covered in the NACA article, or maybe in a dedicated List of NACA reports. Readers interested in the details might as well read the report directly, rather than reading a (poorly written) article about it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If these are deemed to be not independently notable then we should have a list article or merge or redirect to NACA. There is not a reason to delete these titles. AfD involvement is not required to resolve this. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/maybe merge Where is the independent coverage about these reports? Without such sourcing these are not notable, even if scientifically relevant. The above assertions appear based on NACA reports generally, so if sources exist about them, they could be covered in the main or a list article but certainly not as this stands. Reywas92^Talk 06:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but possibly merge, as there are 12 reports/technical notes here. These reports are part of the history of the growing understanding of manned flight, and they publicized knowledge that is still relevant today. For example, Information Sources in Engineering, edited by Roderick A. Macleod, Jim Corlett, page 274, says "The main product of NACA's research was its multi-tiered report series. Although the exact number of NACA reports published is unknown, most estimates place this number between 20,000 and 30,000. This collection of work remains in high demand even today, especially for the basic fundamentals of flight." That was published as recently as 2012. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 15:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find anything which covers this specific report independently and secondarily. I don't think it's able to be referenced at all. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect. WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The first sentence of the summary is all but a direct quote from the first sentence of the report, then the next paragraph is verbatim from the first paragraph of the report's introduction.[1]. The conclusion section just has a few words changed at the beginning and the rest (as far as I went before I got bored looking) is verbatim from Section VI of the report. [2] This is nothing if not a violation of Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, and as others have pointed out, it is unlikely there will be enough independent material out there addressing this report in isolation to make it a candidate for stubbification and rewriting. Agricolae (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I hope it's not WP:POINTY, but in case this is kept, I removed the conclusions section from the article on WP:NPS grounds, as it was nearly a direct copy and paste, long, and without attribution. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the Summary section is also mostly verbatim/close paraphrase from the same source:

Ours:NACA Report No. 106 describes an investigation of the flow characteristics in the air passages of aircraft radiators. This work was requested by NACA and was performed by the Bureau of Standards.

Source: This report describes an investigation of the characteristics of flow in the air passages of aircraft radiators, the work being done at the Bureau of Standards for the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.

Ours: The primary requirement of a cooling radiator is that it shall dissipate heat; and for cooliug the engines of aircraft it is essential that the head resistance shalI be low. But both heat transfer and head resistance are greatly affected not only by the speed of air past the cooling surfaces, but by the character of the flow-whether the air passes through the radiator in smooth streams, or with eddies and vortices. If the flow is turbulent, the questions arise whether the turbulence can be increased by changes in construction, and if so whether the result is beneficial or harmful to the general performance of the radiator.

Source: The primary requirement of a cooling radiator is evidently that it shall dissipate heat; and for cooling the engines of aircraft it is very important that the head resistance shall be low. But both heat transfer and head resistance are greatly affected not only by the speed of air past the cooling surfaces, but by the character of the flow—whether the air passes through the radiator in smooth streams, or with eddies and vortices. Furthermore, if the flow is turbulent, the questions arise whether the turbulence can be increased by changes in construction, and if so whether the result is beneficial or harmful to the general performance of the radiator.

Remove all that and we are left with an article that reads in its entirety:

NACA Report No. 106 - Turbulence in the Air Tubes of Radiators of Aircraft Engines was issued by the United States National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in 1921. This report presents experimental evidence bearing on the problem, and presents some conclusions based on that evidence.

That does not an article make. Agricolae (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. There would need to be significant coverage of the document itself, not just coverage of the findings, in order to meet notability guidelines. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2019 (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.