Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water potential


 * 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 keep. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Water potential
this was part of my coursework, and was put on here somehow (not by me!). In our coursework we have to source everything, but come up with our own definition of water potential. I came up with this, it was put on here (thus becoming something I should source - but I couldn't, as our own definitions had to be exactly that - our own and original). So if it is not deleted then it is possible I could have taken it off here, as there is no proof that it was me that was using that IP when it was put on (even thought it was). Gjay 19:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That was the most convoluted paragraph I have ever read (that wasn't my own). If you're saying that you are the author and want it deleted, then speedy delete. If you're saying that you are the lister and want to remove the AfD, then speedy keep. Otherwise, redirect to Water pressure. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
 * The article has been in existance for over a year and has been subsequently edited/added to by other editors --pgk( talk ) 23:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how this is not just a convoluted and confusing special case of chemical potential as applied to water? If so I suggest that the article state as much and refer to a discussion of chemical potential. If this is special notation in common (?!) use then that should also be stated. As far as I know there is nothing special in this formulation that applies only to water and not to arbitrary solvents/liquids. I suspect that this concept is obsolete and of merit for understanding older thermodynamic literature. However, if this is the case, it should be made clear. Certainly it seems odd that a "potential" should have dimensions of pressure. 67.85.203.239 01:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

how do I "speedy delete"?
 * See Criteria for speedy deletion. However, it no longer qualifies as others besides you have now worked on the article. howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 01:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; The term is still in use. Tom Harrison (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - core concept in plant physiology from Google.scholar - Guettarda 16:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep although the original author may now wish it gone, it doesn't appear to be nonsense and has been edited by others. CarbonCopy (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Hardvice 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep! The concept is there, the information good, it seems. IanManka 05:13, 19 December 2005 (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.