Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Properties of water

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Properties of water

Reads like a children's book. I'm sure this information is already available at Water, no need for this page. --CrypticBacon 05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note presence of Importance of water as well cmh 05:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• It might have been useful if this were Kiddiepedia. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Nothing new that isn't in Water. WU03 05:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. No need to waste time on this. Pavel Vozenilek 06:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Delete Neither scientific nor educational in scope or content. Vote changed as repeated Google searches can't prove copyvio.  (aeropagitica)  07:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless this turns out to be a copyright violation, the article clearly does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Vslashg (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopaedic. Smells of copyvio also. Proto||type 12:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNo reason to have this article. Nigelthefish 20:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, provides basic information available elsewhere in an unencyclopaedic manner. -- Mithent 01:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Proto. Peter Grey 04:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Water. Partly because of WP:BITE, partly because I don't think this is an unreasonable search term (and, perhaps, would eventually warrant a (better) stand-alone article). --Karnesky 07:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from nom. I agree with the redirect per Karnesky since "properties of water" is a valid search term. --CrypticBacon 03:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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.