Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluid extract


 * 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 redirect to Extract.  Sandstein  06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Fluid extract

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page is 13 years old and has collected copious dust bunnies over the years. No citations, and there isn't anything to cite. Fluid extract is quite a generic and undefined term. The page itself is uninformative and superfluous.

Probably should have prodded this, hindsight 20/20, but too late now. -- Tautomers (T C) 06:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination claims that there isn't anything to cite. Here are some counter-examples, which demonstrate the nature of this broad topic:
 * Comparisons of Soxhlet extraction, pressurized liquid extraction, supercritical fluid extraction and subcritical water extraction for environmental solids
 * Microwave-Assisted Extraction as an Alternative to Soxhlet, Sonication, and Supercritical Fluid Extraction
 * Comparison of supercritical fluid extraction and Soxhlet extraction for the determination of PCBs in seaweed samples
 * A non-conventional method to extract D-limonene from waste lemon peels and comparison with traditional Soxhlet extraction
 * Recent advances in extraction of nutraceuticals from plants
 * Oil extraction from microalgae for biodiesel production
 * Development of a novel supercritical fluid extraction procedure for lanolin extraction from raw wool
 * Comparison of extraction methods of virgin coconut oil: cold press, soxhlet and supercritical fluid extraction
 * A comparative study of various oil extraction techniques from plants
 * Ultrasound-assisted extraction in food analysis


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, definitely. WP already has articles on Soxhlet extractor and Supercritical fluid extraction, and quite probably on other forms of extraction that use fluids. The only possibly-useful outcome of this page would be for it to be renamed and completely re-written to become some sort of list/disambiguation page pointing at the other articles. There is absolutely no need for an article called 'fluid extract' because this is such a broad and fuzzy term, analogous to having an article called "things that turn some sort of energy into rotational kinetic energy" instead of articles on the electric motor, the internal combustion engine and so on. Also, as someone who actually works in a closely related field, I'm not sure what much of the text of the current article is supposed to mean. Elemimele (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We have such an article – it's called engine or motor. This is exactly what a broad topic is supposed to do in a general encyclopedia – we need such general explanations as well as detailed specifics.  See can't see the wood for the trees. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Blank and Redirect to Extract. The article is uncited and poorly written. Until a better article on this vague topic is written, it is a useful search term to direct readers somewhere. Extraction (chemistry) is another possible target. Both articles also need some help. Mdewman6 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Extract, as Extraction (chemistry) is probably over-specific. Extract is already a broad-scope article that needs improvement; we don't gain anything by having two such pages. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. I'm sympathetic to the editors who desire to preserve this article as a redirect, but it is a misguided belief. The article was created 13 years ago in one small edit by a WP:SPA and has no sources, so there is nothing worth saving to enhance a different article. All of the very little content in this article is useless. Editor time would be better spent directly enhancing articles like Extract with reliable sources. What do they need this for? Newshunter12 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone who suggested redirecting, I don't really think there's anything worth preserving; it's more of a "eh, redirects are cheap" decision. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, I am not suggesting we preserve anything from the article (not merge anything) but the page is a very plausible search term, so a redirect might be helpful. In spite of what I said above, I am not sure Extract in its current form is a good target, Extraction (chemistry) may be better. All that said, I would be okay with deletion and deferring to search results if that is the direction consensus takes this. I agree, let's improve these other articles. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Would 'delete and redirect' be an agreeable compromise for either of you? We all seem to agree that this article is useless, and I'd be fine joining with a 'fluid extract' redirect to an existing article that hopefully will be soon revamped. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm normally not much of a fan of that end-around maneuver, as why not just preserve the page history along the way, but I would be okay with that, sure. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect Changed vote to help form consensus. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2021 (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.