Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxygenated liquid

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 DELETE.

Oxygenated liquid
This stub article attempts and fails to explain the concept of fluid breathing using a false, pseudoscientific analogy. It was apparently created solely to provide a link from The Abyss about the film's use of a fluid-breathing system. I've already directed that article's two links to the existing, robust, accurate article. Since the more generic concept of "oxygenated liquid" could refer to anything right up to pond water for freshwater fish, I doubt this article could be made useful. &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 2 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to be a science-fiction concept from a film not popular enough to have every little thing about it made into an entry.  Dcarrano July 2, 2005 16:43 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not even from the film at all. The Abyss explicitly describes the Deep Suit as a fluid-breathing system (a real-life concept that is used in more than just this one film, moreover).  The closest that it comes to this article's title is in referring to an "oxygenated fluorocarbon emulsion", which is indeed the very correction that Jeffq has made to the article about the film. Uncle G 2005-07-02 22:04:05 (UTC)
 * Delete fluid breathing does the job fine. This is a poorly written article that has nothing that can be salvaged. -Splash July 2, 2005 17:01 (UTC)
 * As per Jeffq and Splash, Delete. Uncle G 2005-07-02 22:04:05 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly redirect somewhere suitable (e.g. fluid breathing). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 2, 2005 22:34 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect as per Radiant. Xoloz 4 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirecting to Fluid breathing may not be appropriate, since water with dissolved oxygen (DO)>0 can be called oxygenated. As it is written, it is incoherent and uses an apparently faulty metaphor to try to explain something that I don't think the contributor understands.--WCFrancis 4 July 2005 08:00 (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.