Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lennard-Jones fluid


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Lennard-Jones potential. Liz Read! Talk! 13:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Lennard-Jones fluid

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

this article here (Lennard-Jones fluid) is essentially a duplicate to Lennard-Jones potential and should be removed. It does not provide additional information nor it would be clear how the two articles differ regarding their scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeStep89 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This nomination was not properly formatted or signed, or transcluded to the AfD log. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 13:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 13:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Duplicates content of the Lennard-Jones potential article and thus needs a rewrite, but there are sufficient reliable sources for a stub. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Lennard-Jones potential. I have verified that this redirect target includes the important references and content in this article.
 * (Just FYI, this AfD process is a Big Deal on Wikipedia and it pulls in folks from across Wikipedia. To clean up these kinds of extraneous leaf pages, merge is much better option. Check that the leaf content and significant references are in target then propose a redirect via the Talk page for the project, in this case Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry. If you don't get push back after a week, apply the redirect.) Johnjbarton (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to Lennard-Jones potential it is the better option that I think MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect. The Lennard-Jones potential article is long and could plausibly be split into shorter articles on subtopics, but this duplicate article doesn't really help in that regard, as it is not more substantial than . —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems in general possible to split the "Lennard-Jones potential" article.
 * Yet, it would not be obvious how. The only option that I could see would be to make a split to "Lennard-Jones potential" and "Lennard-Jones substance", i.e. the (theoretical) substance described by the Lennard-Jones potential. However, several aspects would need to be discussed equally in both articles.
 * I think it is best to keep it as a single concise article. TimeStep89 (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.