Talk:Damping matrix
Add topicLatest comment: 15 years ago by Michael Hardy in topic Damping matrix
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by an editor on 26 January 2011. |
Damping matrix
[edit]I really do not think that this article is a stub! It is just a small piece of a very large domain of classical mechanics which is "vibration". Any development in THIS article would be, I think, inaccurate.
CharlesCo (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then I must ask, why must there be a separate article on this? Is there some larger article that this content can be merged into? I interpret your statement above to mean that there is no prospect for future expansion of this very short article, which makes it a "permastub" (permanent stub). Although not specifically prohibited, this type of article is somewhat looked down on.
- Additionally, I've let this article's notability issues slide since you removed the proposed deletion tag. In order for any subject to merit its own article on Wikipedia, it must be the subject of multiple reliable, independent sources. Bear in mind that this article still can be deleted through the Articles for deletion process if the community decides it should be deleted under the deletion policy. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Please leave this page in existence. It is useful just to get an idea of what a Damping matrix is. 86.23.102.176 (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but "it's useful" is not in and of itself a valid reason to keep an article that fails notability criteria. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It certainly looks as if it could be greatly expanded. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)