Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquefaction (disambiguation)


 * 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   delete. J04n(talk page) 19:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Liquefaction (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page Liquefaction (disambiguation) was linked only from liquefaction to disambiguate two topics liquefaction already covers: Soil liquefaction and Liquefaction of gases. I've improved (IMO) liquefaction, and it no longer needs to link to Liquefaction (disambiguation), making Liquefaction (disambiguation) an orphan. Unless Liquefaction (disambiguation) should be redirected to liquefaction, then Liquefaction (disambiguation) ought be deleted in my opinion. Sorry if things got a bit confusing there! Scientific29 (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment : nom is proposing:
 * Liquefaction a WP:DABCONCEPT, ok in principle
 * BUT I think it may be too broad - if Soil liquefaction is included (solid acting like a liquid - which is not in the scope of the article with the current lead).
 * and removing DAB at Liquefaction (disambiguation).
 * A hatnote or keeping this DAB for this unrelated (it does not become a liquid but acts like one).
 * I would also lean towards keeping the DAB for at least a See also section to liquidate etc.
 *  Weak Keep  Delete (see update below) due to above.  Widefox ; talk 10:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Widefox. I agree the current lead is insufficient and have added "...refers to the process of becoming liquid or liquid like." to allow soil liquefaction to fall under the scope of the liquefaction article. (I think it makes sense to include soil liquefaction on liquefaction since it is one of the several somewhat idiosyncratic ways "liquefaction" is used, even while having another article for soil liquefaction since it is such an extensively researched topic.) I was unfamiliar with "Broad-concept articles", but that is exactly what I was looking to do with liquefaction.Scientific29 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference to support that definition? Widefox ; talk 00:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't mean to be obtuse, but a reference for "...or liquid-like" as a part of the definition of "liquefaction"? Here's one from a USGS website:
 * "Liquefaction: A process by which water-saturated sediment temporarily loses strength and acts as a fluid, like when you wiggle your toes in the wet sand near the water at the beach. This effect can be caused by earthquake shaking." 1
 * I think "acts as a fluid" could be paraphrased accurately as "liquid-like". Cheers! Scientific29 (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't clear - I mean a reference to cover both as one (broad) topic, as for me solids acting as liquids (fluids) are not the same topic as liquids. I err on the cautious side without knowing how the soil topic works (and for example how it compares with topics like glass/solid, Non-Newtonian fluids)). Widefox ; talk 18:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme ( talk )  00:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Most dictionaries define "liquefaction" 1 as the process of becoming "liquid". "liquid" then as the physical phase, but also as "of, pertaining to, or consisting of a liquid" 2 thus encompassing both meanings here. I'm new to the concept WP:DABCONCEPT, but doesn't this further allow some leeway in broadening the scope of the article? Scientific29 (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * broad concepts articles aren't easy, but I'm not convinced. My secondary concern right now is the article at Liquefaction is unsourced and looks like a DAB page - without sources I'm tempted to delete it and move the DAB there. Widefox ; talk 12:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm increasingly unsure of the best resolution here. Perhaps the current situation would be best: a DAB to direct people to the major, article worthy types of liquefaction and a supporting article on the less article-worthy uses of "liquefaction"? I'm imagining the DAB like:
 * "Liquefaction generally refers to the formation of a liquid or liquid-like state
 * Liquefaction more specifically refers to:
 * soil liquefaction, liquefactive necrosis and liquefaction of gases."
 * Scientific29 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 *  Keep  We have four articles with "liquefaction" in the title, and a fifth with a closely related word. A disambiguation page is appropriate, in my opinion, in such a situation.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Which four are you referring to? We have soil liquefaction, liquefactive necrosis and liquefaction of gasses. Liquefaction point is a redirect and an obscure term at that 1.
 * Liquefaction point - redirects and obscurity aside - it is mentioned in the article, so can be included in the DAB per either WP:DABMENTION or WP:DABREDIR. Saying that, it also could be included in the broad concept, so I added it. Widefox ; talk 14:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: After seeing how far we've come with the broad concept article, I will update the DAB to remove entries covered by it, which means please reevaluate your !votes above with this, hence my change to delete. Good work Scientific29, I (think) I'm happy with it now, regards. I would like some more eyeballs as I've looked at this too long now. In British English liquidate must come into this somewhere, although I'm uneasy about the scope still. It would be good to close this soon, as the DAB is now empty. Widefox ; talk 17:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Because of the work done by various editors including Scientific29 and Widefox, the page is no longer needed.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  00:16, 8 April 2013 (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.