Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbonation


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. The nominator has subsequently ivoted in the discussion to "keep". Early participants have also shown that this AfD will get even snowier. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Carbonation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Poorly sourced article. There are only two sources in there, and it is entirely unsourced. CPORfan (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science,  and Technology. CPORfan (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable concept. AFD is not cleanup. Andre🚐 03:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason for delete it. CPORfan (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a notable concept that simply needs more to be written on it. It has nearly 57k hits on JSTOR and 91.8 million hits on Google- clearly not "non-notable".Jaguarnik (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have no reason for delete it. Just we want to delete or keep it? I don't know what the hell is this. CPORfan (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you do not want to delete it, why did you nominate it for deletion? Adding a clean-up tag would have been fine. Jaguarnik (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)