Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrophobic effect

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrophobic effect

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

This article is redundant because of the 'Hydrophobic force' section of the 'Entropic force' article and the 'Hydrophobe' article. This article also has several tags for cleanup and since I just edited its excessive grammar errors, the credibility of its writing is questionable anyways. Some sections such as 'The origin of hydrophobic effect' and 'protein purification' could be merged with the 'Hydrophobe' article, which already contains a 'Research and development' section and a 'Potential applications' subsection. Pigi5 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – this is an important subject in its own right since the hydrophobic effect drives cell membrane formation, protein folding, protein-protein interaction, and binding of drugs to their biological targets. Overlap with other articles is perhaps a justification for merger, not deletion. The proposed mergers into 'Research and development' and a 'Potential applications' subsection do not make any sense since the hydrophobic effect already has proven applications (i.e., life as we know it would not be possible without the hydrophobic effect). If anything, hydrophobe should be merged into hydrophobic effect as the number of Google search hits hydrophobic effect (3,550,000 results) far outweighs hydrophobe (476,000 results). Poor writing, grammatical errors, etc. as they can easily be corrected, are not valid reasons for deletion. Boghog (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STrong keep. Agree with Boghog. Hydrophobic effect is a widely-used term in chemistry and biochemistry as shown by the Google search results above. As for hydrophobic force as mentioned by Pigi5, it has only 24, 500 results. Dirac66 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An obvious keep. This is a very well-known term in biophysics, and in particular protein physics, and is far more notable than the nom's proposed alternative forms. AfD isn't for cleanup and it is not for merging. Also the hydrophobic effect is a scientific phenomenon, whereas the hydrophobic force is a physical model of the phenomenon, so they are neither equivalent nor redundant. It is best to remind oneself of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD before nomination. --Mark viking (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2015 (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.