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. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Permeability Derivation based on Capillary Tube Model

Permeability Derivation based on Capillary Tube Model (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Apparent original research with no context and no references. It might be a candidate for Wikibooks, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Kolbasz ( talk) 18:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz ( talk) 12:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not only are there no references, there isn't even any text. The article consists entirely of 3 formulas. LaMona ( talk) 23:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete No article, no notability, no question. PianoDan ( talk) 15:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete – No references, no assertion of notability. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 16:16, 29 December 2014 (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.