Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vapor quality


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 01:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Vapor quality

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability concerns Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Merge and Redirect to vapor. I don't think there is a need to discuss its notability as its a physical quantity, not a person or organization; but its too tiny to have its own article. Better to keep all tiny bits of information about vapor in the vapor article itself. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to vapor. I was waiting to find a better article to merge this to in regards with physics or, more specifically, mechanical work, but that will do. Definitely cannot stand alone as its own article. MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly exists, and wouldn't fit into another article in a good way. Narayanese (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with vapor. It's probably not suitable for a separate article, but there's no notability concerns as it is clearly an existing physical quantity as a brief google will show. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems more than notable enough given the thousands of google scholar and google books hits for "vapor quality" and "steam quality" (which appears to be a synonym). While the current article is a stub that could be merged into steam, it is best to leave it so it can one day be expanded with information about how this property is measured, what is the typical range, its practical significance, etc. --Itub (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Used by (at least in the old days) the ASME steam tables. Reasonable term for a perma-stub on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2008 (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.