Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fulvic acid


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn after sterling cleanup effort. Congratulations to nominator and participants. Shirt58 (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Fulvic acid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pseudo-scientific crap and medical quackery backed by fringe sources. Fails WP:PROFRINGE. See also WP:Complete bollocks. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination Bowing to clear consensus. That said we need to keep a close eye on the article to prevent the return of the naked PROFRINGE material that was excised. I am not seeing much left, but apparently there is a belief that it can be salvaged and turned into an encyclopedic article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and consider a merge to Humic acid. The fact that this article currently says more about about some harms from industrial agriculture practices doesn't mean that the chemical class is non-notable/not worthy of an article.  WP:Deletion is not clean up.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed the article was originally created as a redirect to Humic Acid and briefly considered just doing a WP:DBR since pretty much anything worth discussing in the article was pure bunk. The problem is that I am seeing similar problems at Humic acid. And no we don't keep articles because they discuss alleged issues with industrial agriculture, when in fact it is just a promotion of pseudo-scientific BS. -Ad Orientem (talk)


 * comment - I removed about 90% of the article which was irrelevant, misleading, or unsourced. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the mass redaction. I noticed that it was at one time a redirect to Humic acid. But I am concerned that article may have similar issues. I really think we need someone with a certain degree of expertise to have a look before we consider any kind of merge or redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Humic acid is in considerably better shape and there is no reason why Fulvic acid could not also be brought to the same standard. Boghog (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic gets over 36,000 hits on GScholar and browsing the first two pages of hits shows quite a few articles where this is treated in depth. GBooks also nets about 22,000 hits. This looks like a highly notable mainstream topic in soil chemistry. Eliminating undue fringe stuff is a matter of editing, not deletion--thanks go to Staszek Lem for cleaning this up. --Mark viking (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep While I agree that the article was poorly sourced and biased, I notice that it was entirely created from the ground up today by a new editor. It looks to me like it was a sincere newbie effort. I have no idea how widely used or notable "Fulvic Acid" is as a nutritional supplement. Maybe this could be a topic for an article in itself, if done to Wiki standards. I left a note at the new user's talk page, encouraging him/her to keep trying and not take this personally. JerryRussell (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * keep per reason given by JerryRussell(above)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as I recall from long ago Environmental Chemistry lectures, humic and fulvic acids are major components of soil, and are among the key organic building blocks used by plants in order to grow. Any claimed medical benefits in humans are to my knowledge entirely fictitious - these are nutrients for plants, not people - and certainly such quackery should not be allowed on Wikipedia, but this is no reason to delete the article, as this family of compounds are both notable and have many reliable sources which an improved article could draw from. That said, I'm not sure there is really enough content here to justify a fork from the much better written page about humic acid, as they are really just sub categories of a larger group of organic acids found in soil, so this page could probably be merged and made a redirect again if no one can be bothered improving it. Meodipt (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep now that it's less of a coatrack, it seems like a decent base on which to build. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons above. I also notice some reviews on PubMed. For example, there is research into use of fulvic acid with nanomaterials. Cheers! Georginho (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - a real thing with research into real uses. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2016 (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.