Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isoelectric (electric 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 was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isoelectric (electric potential)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure dictionary definition, WP:NOTDICT perfectly applies here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, and/or Redirect. The topic is highly notable, even if the page is awful. I will post this to WT:PHYSICS as someone will either improve it or find the right home for a redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is valuable information for applications in solid state physics as well as in medicine (cardiology and related topics). Starlighsky (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please improve it. If you don't I will probably change my vote to speedy delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or at worst redirect): the content here does not deserve an article of its own.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it were moved to isoelectric line, this would never grow beyond WP:DICTDEF. And the actual term used by people is equipotential line (sometimes isopotential line). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The definition of this term would require at most a line in an article, not an article unto itself. I concur with Headbomb: when physics people talk about points having the same electric potential, we say equipotential, not isoelectric. I suspect that an antiquated use in physics is being conflated with a use in medicine. Gathering together the different definitions of a word is a job for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete earlier I hoped that the original editor (or someone else) would edit it to something more reasonable, but that is clearly not going to happen. Hence I am changing my vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)

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.