Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic cavitation


 * 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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sonic cavitation
Does not convey any useful information not already covered in alchemy. Description of process can be found at electrolysis. Isopropyl 04:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. On second thought, it should probably just be a redirect to electrolysis. Isopropyl 04:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. Page was originally a simple (but false) definition, has since been expanded. Isopropyl 19:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Speedy redirect.   dbtfz talk 04:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to neutral. For all I know, this could have something to do with Sonicare.  :-)   dbtfz talk 04:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but correct / expand contents, the article is currently inadequate. Move to more frequently used phrase "Acoustic cavitation" or Merge into Sonochemistry, bubble fusion or sonoluminescence.  Ande B 04:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What? In what universe is sonic cavitation a synonym for electrolysis?  I don't see how a process proposed to drive a hot confined fusion reaction could also be a process for splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.  Per google it seems like the best redirect it to bubble fusion. At some point in the future a new article could be written for sonic cavitation which would point to bubble fusion as one of many uses. Thatcher131 04:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Holy crap. What the devil does this term even mean? Isopropyl 04:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just going on basic terminology sonic cavitation means using sound waves to make bubbles. One example is the sonicating water baths used to clean instruments and jewelry.  Another is the laboratory technique sonication.  There are claims in the bubble fusion article that doing this on a very tiny but very intense scale causes a form of cold fusion.  Unless someone wants to write it up properly describing and referencing the different scales and uses, I suggest redirect to bubble fusion since that seems to be the most notable current use for this specific term. Thatcher131 05:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's acceptable now but certainly should be expanded further. OK to keep Thatcher131 11:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted the horseshit and replaced it by a short sensible stub. Keep. Anthony Appleyard 05:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anthony Appleyard. As a sensible stub, knowledgeable people can develop it into a meaningful article.  Ande B 06:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Bubble fusion. -Objectivist-C 06:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; the new stub is fine. Sonic cavitation definitely not a form of electrolysis. It's related but not equivalent to bubble fusion, sonoluminescence, or sonication. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, current form. As per Zetawoof. -- blue 520  09:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also thank you Anthony Appleyard for getting rid of the crud. -- blue 520  09:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, physically notable phenomenon. --Xorox 12:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep rewrite is fine Kotepho 13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Entry needs significant expansion, but now that several folks have made changes its worth keeping as a stub. --MarcoTolo 16:39, 13 April 2006 (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.