Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water-in-Water Emulsions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. DES (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Water-in-Water Emulsions

Water-in-Water Emulsions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Total Jargon, no references, not a dictionary.  superβεεcat  21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. In clear need of sources and cleanup, but subject's applications may be notable.--Absurdist 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't an article need to assert as much in order to avoid deletion? - superβεεcat  21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If the subject is notable then first it should be tagged with {{notability}} or {{expert-subject}}, per WP:N, in order to give editors time to improve the article.--Absurdist 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but improve asap. Google says this is a bona fide substance. But the jargon needs to go. --Targeman 23:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The jargon is all vocabulary that anyone interested in such things will know, and it would be a long dull read if put into junior-school English. I learned a little from looking at itDaverotherham 03:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with emulsion until material sufficiently developed to stand alone. Espresso Addict 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per Espresso Addict. Emulsion provides the proper context for this subject.--Absurdist 03:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as above. Article is too specific to be encyclopedic. Possibly if rewritten for a more general audience, but I still don't see clear notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand There needs to be more said, along with references, but it's an acceptable stub. It is not necessary to start with complete articles, per WP:STUB From that guideline "While a "definition" may be enough to qualify an article as a stub, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If little other information is ever likely to be added, then it should go ..." Which certainly implies that if information can likly be added, it should be kept. DGG (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep' but needs some attention to make the article more accessible for a general audience -- Whpq 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep sounds like an important subject, deserving an article. References of course should be added and the article needs to be expand, so let's give it the time for that. A redirect or merge should be discussed in the article's talk page. Dan Gluck 20:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are plenty of important esoteric subjects out there, and I think that this is one of them. To be sure, the jargon problem needs to be fixed, it needs references and such, but they are fixable problems. Neranei T/C 23:26, 21 July 2007 (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.