Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid handling

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. MBisanz talk 02:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid handling

Liquid handling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vague topic, with no sources to suggest that it's important. ubiquity (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - what the term covers is an important topic in many areas (food preparation, water purification, chemicals manufacture...etc) but it would be hard to create a good article on this topic that actually says anything useful about it beyond what articles on each individual aspect (piping, pipetting, joining components, hose clamps, etc) can cover - my advice to the page creator is maybe get some experience improving those before coming back to this with experience of referencing and so on. So my thinking is delete but if someone wanted to improve it I might switch my vote. I've tagged for WikiProject Engineering in case someone there has any thoughts. Blythwood (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current state. I would recommend disambiguation, but my understanding of this topic is limited. There should be multiple topics named "liquid handling" meeting MOS:DABENTRY. SSTflyer 16:56, 27 March 2016 (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.