Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvinorin extraction


 * 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. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Salvinorin extraction

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This is a how-to guide which Wikipedia is WP:NOT describing how to extract a hallucinogenic drug from a plant, and possibly doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia Reswobslc 02:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepWeak Delete I guess this was already someone else's edit war. Nardman1 11:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC) this was split off from the main Salvinorin article because it was getting too long. It's not just a random drug making guide. Nardman1 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a How-To guide. The entire purpose of the article is to document the procedure on how to extract the salvinorin from the plant itself. So it's not a "random" drug making guide, it's a guide specific to Salvia Divinorum. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a how-to guide and needs to be removed from Wikipedia. Cheers, Lankybugger 03:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What's to stop someone from reversing the split and adding it back to the article then? Nobody objected when it was in the article. Nardman1 04:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not true that nobody objected. I sure did (here and here, 2 weeks apart) - I deleted the content and explained to the posting new users that how-to's weren't acceptable (example).  These people (or socks of one person) were far more persistent than I could handle, making nearly 300 edits to the article in the course of one week to re-add this garbage (see Special:Contributions/Dusenostachys123 and Special:Contributions/DivineSalvia).  I didn't have the patience to revert 300 times, and then there's that WP:300RR rule, you know ;) Reswobslc 06:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Just because nobody objected to it then doesn't mean we can't object now. This is not an encyclopedic entry, particularly as its own article.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 04:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This page has to be rewritten. In the current form it clearly violates Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Cacycle 05:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I created this article. I thought this information was inappropriate and distracting from the main Salvinorin A article, which was getting a bit too long. I definitely did not want to start an edit war of any sort, and I apologize if I inadvertently raked up an old conflict. If people want to throw it out altogether, I suppose that's also an option, but I definitely would hate to see it go back into the Salvinorin A article, especially now that Salvia is in the news so much and a concise and accurate source of information is so sorely needed. Sjeng 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It needs to be deleted from Wikipedia because it's not within Wikipedia's scope. See WP:NOT.  Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and an article explaining how to extract Salvinorin doesn't belong here.  It's not because Salvinorin is a drug or is controversial, but because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and simply not a how-to guide - an article explaining how to extract a tooth would also have to be deleted.  Reswobslc 19:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Salvinorin isolation is clearly an interesting and encyclopedic topic and it would be perfectly ok to write about it in a general form and give references to the respective publications or (serious) online sources. However, I'd guess that wouldn't fill an article of its own. Cacycle 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I quote the article itself: ' the extraction and purification of salvinorin A should only be attempted by qualified researchers with experience in chemistry and the proper laboratory equipment.' Who are not people who typically use Wikipedia to find expirimental procedure. Delete as useless for any legal purpose.
 * Keep - This article is not labratory instruction. To quote the article: This summary does not contain nearly enough information to act as a Step-by-step or how-to guide for extractions, such guides are readily found on the Internet via search engines.  This proceedure is as enyclopedia worthy as other scientific and mathematical proceedures that are uncontested for Wikipedia inclusion.  If the Salvinorin A article is getting overly lengthy, it is completely appropriate to give Salvinorin extraction its own article. Shaundakulbara 04:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are saying we should keep it because it is too poor and useless to be considered a real how-to guide for WP:NOT? Or because in spite of its heading "How To Extract", it's not really a how-to guide because it claims so?  Or perhaps because the information is available everywhere else (just like porn) that Wikipedia needs to mirror it?  Policy says that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and Wikipedia is not a mirror.  WP:NOT is a policy not a guideline, and I think the consensus being sought is whether or not this article violates the policy, not whether the policy should be disregarded here. Reswobslc 04:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is proposed for deletion as a NOT violation because it is allegedly a "how to article". I (1) pointed out that it isn't a "how to article" and doesn't purport to be, (2) opinioned that it is notable and (3) said it sounds as if a merger is impractical.  I can't spell this out any more clearly.  If still confused, you're on your own. Shaundakulbara 09:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote the heading: "How To Extract". Seems pretty clear it's a how-to to me. Reswobslc 09:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Shaundakulbara, renaming the section from How To Extract to Extraction Process doesn't change the fact that the bulk of the text remains a how-to guide. To stop it from being a how-to guide, you would have to reduce the entire article to a summary of a couple paragraphs. It would then be a stub which couldn't be improved on without making it a how-to guide, indicating that Salvinorin Extraction should be remerged into the main article under the new summary. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * deletethis may not be enough directions for a beginning chemist, but the amount of practical detail is way out of proportion to other articles about chemicals in WP. DGG 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but re-format from a "how to..." to a more general "extraction process for...". We're not a "how to" manual, but information on how a particular compound is extracted is perfectly reasonable for an encyclopedia. WMMartin 16:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Clean up, obviously. WMMartin 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - It might be helpful to point out that actually instructions for this process are much lengthier than this article. This article is a synopsis of the process that is appropriate for Wikipedia (but yes, this synopsis could be streamlined further).  I suspect that some of the delete voters believe this article advocates or encourages hallucinagenic drug manufacture.  It doesn’t.  There is no POV in this article nor is there censorship on Wikipedia.  Shaundakulbara 21:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I assure you that advocacy of drug manufacture is not the issue. I have personally extracted Salvinorin from leaves using essentially the procedure described, and used the resulting product myself.  I'm hardly trying to advocate morality here.  Wikipedia is just not a how-to guide.  For example:  "Although extraction may be dangerous due to solvent toxicity and flammability, Salvinorin can easily be extracted from leaves using chilled acetone.  It can further refined by using naphtha or isopropanol to remove impurities, as salvinorin is poorly soluble to these" just about covers it.  Being two sentences, they would fit right back in the main article, not in a new one. Reswobslc 22:01, 26 January 2007 (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.