Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water use

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 Merge to Virtual water and/or water footprint. As anetode says, one cohesive article would make sense here. Merge tag applied to this article. Black Kite 23:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water use

An aquatic bit of WP:NEO. I recommend pouring this one out. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My, you are quick. I started this article because I wanted information on water use. I could not find the information under the various articles I looked at. Finally (after writing an article complete with a table with numbers from an article in New Scientist) I discovered the article Virtual water which contains the information I wanted. So I cut my article down to what you see now. I decided against making it a "redirect" straight to Virtual water, because the term "water use" can refer to other things, such as water footprint, and because I do not consider "virtual water" to be a very good general term for the amount of water used in producing various things. (It is mostly used in the context of trade, as to say that a particular import represents a certain amount of water used in the country of origin.) I think Wikipedia should be useful so that someone who wants information on water use won't have to think of looking under "virtual water". I also think that people shouldn't spend their time worrying too much about a few more bytes on the Wikipedia hard disks! As though "water use" is a neologism. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wait, why did you create an article about water use? You wanted info on water use? I'm confused! --Lord Sunday 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wanted information, and since I couldn't find it, I looked for an article in New Scientist, and wrote my own article. Only afterwards did I find more or less the same information in the Virtual water article. By the way, I have added some more information to this article, which should not go into the Virtual water article--another reason not to convert this into a "redirect". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now. Much as I'd like to get into the flow of another of Ecoleetage's pun-filled AfDs, this article does seem to have the potential for a stream of sources that give it at least a drop of notability. The pour article was nominated extremely quickly after creation, and I'll drink to the likelihood that there are more references out there that discuss this concept in an encyclopedic manner. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I raise my glass to you for the thirst-quenching wit. But the water level in the glass is at mid-level -- I don't know if it is half-full or half-empty. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, even though I may disagree with you on this particular AfD, I must say that your puns consistently crack me up. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think I see the point of this article, but it doesn't seem to cover anything that isn't adequately covered by water supply. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Water supply doesn't cover the same things. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to water footprint. Nothing but a stubby fork. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "fork" is, according to your link, when you have several articles about the same subject. Here the situation is somewhat the opposite. The term "water use" can mean several different things: the amount of water used for a particular purpose (as in the article on virtual water), the amount of water used by a particular consumer (as in water footprint), and the amount of water used globally. We need an article to catch the phrase "water use" and send people where they can find more information on whichever topic they wanted. Actually, I think a lot of the information under Virtual water should be here under "water use". "Virtual water" is really a term having to do with world trade, and it would be better to make that article shorter and transfer the figures for various products to here. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep for the time being...Err...this one is a tough glassful to swallow. Subject is a stub, but agree with Eric that "water use" is not a neologism. Also further agree that "virtual water" is a separate topic, thus do not support the redirect. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into water footprint. I'm not convinced at this point that this is not a fork. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But as I have said above, this article refers to three different ideas. "Water footprint" only covers one of them. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Water footprint. Conceptually, they are the same thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said above, "water footprint" does not cover some of the meanings of "water use". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect noting that theres a MOS that says something about common knowledge doesnt need to be defined. Why not make it a soft redirect, this article appears to cover two different terms both of which have article neither is wholly synonymous with this. "Virtual water" is the recipe level use ie cool 30ml of water to 0oC to make an ice block. Where as "Water Footprint" is about the total water required to make the ice block ie 30ml for the block it self plus 2l for the manufacturing of the ice cube tray plus 2Gl of water used by the power station to generate the power required to run the freezer to cool the water. Gnan garra 13:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what Wikipedia:Soft redirect is for. By the way, "water footprint" is used more for the usage of a particular consumer or group of consusmers. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary & delete. I can see potential in an article on world water use, however the current article is nothing but a definition contextualized by the sole reference. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the article is just a stub. But that's not a reason to delete it. In my opinion, the material under "water footprint" and "virtual water" should have been put under this name, rather than under the slightly bizarre terms "footprint" and "virtual...". In any case, I don't think it should be deleted. When I originally looked for information on this, I typed "water use" and didn't get anything. It took me quite a while to find an article talking about what I wanted (namely the virtual water article). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not merge the three? It would make the whole subject much less confusing. Discuss the proper terminology within a cohesive article, else we have two divergent articles about basically the same topic and a bonus stub that goes nowhere. Assume that the casual reader is clueless to the complexity of global water management, would they find the current articles accessible and useful? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.