Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake retention time


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was KEEP. &mdash; J I P | Talk 18:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Lake retention time
Seems to be a dicdef with no real potential for expansion. Should probably be transwikied to Wiktionary. --PacknCanes 18:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could be expanded with examples of retention times, descriptions of the effects of depth, number/size of outlets, pollution concentration, water diversion, etc. Rmhermen 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This seems to be a topic that should already be covered in another article.  The fact that it happens in a lake does not require an article.  Maybe someone can figure out where to redirect rather then keeping.   Vegaswikian 06:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Needs more eyeballs. Relisting. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per Rmhermen, if the pollution bit in particular could be expanded on, I think it's a workable topic. Mallocks 22:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopedic, and thus not really suitable for wiktionary. Kappa 23:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Alf melmac 11:40, 8 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.