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 Procedural close. Please do not relist old, forgotten AFD discussions without starting from the beginning. It's better to procedurally close this and start a new AFD which includes tagging the article under discussion.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stock solution[edit]

Stock solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The original article's subject is intended to be diluted, so therefore the article itself should be. Who's with me? RealSanix (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dilute I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. RealSanix (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Dilute I do as well. This article needs to be diluted STRAIGHT-AWAY! RealSanix (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Dilute I believe that RealSanix is correct in every way. RealSanix (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple !votes from NOM unbolded and struck Agricolae (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have no idea what's going on here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This AfD was created in 2019, never linked to from anywhere, and seems to never have been edited by anyone other than its creator. Additionally, it seems like a joke, rather than a serious proposal to delete an article. jp×g 03:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect with mention to Solution (chemistry). As the first edit summary states ("part of joke project") this was indeed a joke, and an inappropriate one. But, with the relist and the article being properly tagged, indeed some action is warranted here. The unsourced stub is unnecessary and misleading and violates the spirit of WP:NOTDIC. Importantly, the article seems to conflate stock solution with standard solution; you can have a stock solution that is also a standard, but not all stock solutions are of precise concentration, such as buffer solutions. So define the term (correctly) at the main article and redirect there. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Mdewman6 - as much as I don't want to reward an AfD launched as a joke, the page itself deserves removal, as a glorified dictionary definition that, as Mdewman says, muddles distinctions, and nothing in it is referenced or expressed in a manner that we would want to copy it as part of a merge to the target, but the namespace is a possible search term so a redirect would serve a purpose. Agricolae (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. jp×g 02:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A malformed AfD header was fixed. This AfD was also placed in the wrong category — S instead of T. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:25, 26 July 2022 (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.