Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid extraction quotient

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid extraction quotient (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Procedural nomination. {{Hoax}} tag has been on the article for over a month with no action taken to delete article or refute hoax claim. Article claims subject "is the commercially sensitive property of Monsanto Company; they have not released any technical information to the wider scientific community", therefore I would also question the subject's notability. KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Completely blatant.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 05:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined I don't see why that's blatant (which is more of the 'Bus found on moon' 'Elvis works in a chip-shop' kinda thing). If it's been there this long, 7 days won't hurt. GedUK  10:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not quite obvious enough to be a blatant hoax and therefore deletable as vandalism, but the article essentially sets up a non-falsifiable and therefore unverifiable claim. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am less sure that this is a hoax than when I first put the {{hoax}} tag there, but nevertheless this fails WP:V, as a secret of Monsanto. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entirely incoherent nonsense, hoax, likely by prankster at a tech institution. It has been around since 2004 (!) Thanks to User:Suffusion of Yellow for spotting this one and tagging it as hoax. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2009 (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.