Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemistry Misconceptions

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, still much OR in the article, and was not swayed by comparisons to other misconception articles, that are grounded with good references. -- Samir धर्म 11:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry Misconceptions

I prod'd. prod was removed without explanation. afd for being inherently NPOV, poorly formatted, unverifiable, unsourced, and a few things under WP:NOT i kan reed 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Original research. Very original. Medico80 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, patent WP:OR, the picture may be a copyvio nope, it's just an MS Paint job. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomintation and WP:OR - there may even be copyright issues around the chart.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a most important concept in chemistry education and a good article could be written about it. This was only started today. I think it should be given time. Also it is'nt OR. It is talking about things that are well developed in the literature of chemical education. It just is'nt doing it well, so far, and it is'nt citing the literature. The picture may indeed be a MS paint job, but it might still be a copy from an article in the education literature. --Bduke 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How could such an article possibly be verifiable? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How students have misconceptions about chemistry is a significant part of research in chemical education, a field of study that has grown significantly in the last few years. The article can be verified by reference to this published research like any article on any kind of research. Why do you think it is a problem? Indeed I was partly wrong above. The article does have references to articles including to two in the Journal of Chemical Education. That journal often has articles about research on the misconceptions that chemistry students have.--Bduke 12:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Similar entire books have been written about various sciences, math etc. Enormous amounts of research to draw on. Very verifiable and worthwhile subject. Fg2 00:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. The title does not in itself mean it is an automatic delete (see Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS which has survived at least one AfD), but it has no references which does for it. Poor formatting isn't a criterion for deletion by the way. Yomangani 01:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the three references the article does have. They report research on student misconceptions of chemistry. At least I think they do, and if they do not they can be replaced by references that do. There is a large body of publications about this. Why is it OR? --Bduke 12:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, the references were added after I looked at it, but before I commented. It is still not written from a neutral point of view though (although this may be a generic problem with "Misconceptions of..." articles), so I can only change to a weak delete. Yomangani 12:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Could I make the point that this article should not be like "Misconceptions about HIV" or similar. It should be discussing the large body of educational research that studies the ways students have misconceptions about the material they are taught that gets in the way of them learning. It should be one of several sub-articles for chemistry education as one of the major sub-divisions of that research area. --Bduke 23:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment from Author

I appreciate everyone's comments. I am a pre-service teacher completing an assignment for my Science Methods in Education class. Originally, I did not include my references (this was a mistake that I quickly corrected). As for the chart, it is my own summary of work from several sources. Granted, the visual quality is poor becuase I saved it from a MS Word document as a GIF (couldn't think think of a better way, but I really wanted to preserve the style which nicely contrasts accepted and alternative conceptions in chemistry) If I have read the OR Wiki correctly then it does not fit as Original Research. The purpose of this articles was to add to the limited base of knowledge available to the general public and hopefully other teachers. Suggestions are welcome, thanks !!!

• Keep. Encyclopedic topic, and it has actual reliable sources, which is more that can be said about most articles on AfD. Needs cleanup, obviously. My suggestion: drop the chart and use the text as part of the article, so that people can edit it. Sandstein 19:51, 16 August 2006 (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.