Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Beer Lambert Law

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 of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 07:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Beer Lambert Law

Delete because the article is entirely original research. The author, ARGOS++, has been asked to produce citations but has not done so. —xyzzy_n 23:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As a scientist, my first reaction was something akin to "What? You're RfD'ing Gravity?". Then I read the article, spending twenty minutes trying to figure out what, exactly, the author was claiming was wrong with the original Beer-Lambert law (got that) and why (still have no idea). Now my head hurts. Regardless, its fails WP:OR. Ouch. -- MarcoTolo 23:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete m is the TOTAL NUMBER of distinguishable Species !!! Never, never set this number directly equal to the number of different Molecules, Ions, Atoms, etc.!!! is not very convincing, and sounds pretty unencyclopediac; - and it doesn't seem verifiable either. AndyZ _t 01:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is so badly written, I regret to say, that it is impossible to really understand what the author is saying. I think the only important point that the author is making is that the absorbance is the sum of terms for each absorbing species. This is of course well known. For example, it is discussed on page 745 of "Physical Chemistry" by Ira N. Levine, 5th Ed (2002) and is probably discussed in every Physical Chemistry text. Note however, that this only holds if the different absorbing species do not interact with each other. This generalisation to several species is not covered in Beer-Lambert law and should be, but by an editor who can write more clearly than the editor of this article. Otherwise there is nothing worth keeping. I'm sorry if this is rather harsh on the author, but he has been given plenty of time to improve matters. --Bduke 01:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Arbusto 02:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's either WP:OR or WP:Nonsense. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (for maximum fairness, and in case I’m wrong). Now the article has citations, but those contain neither the main formula of the article nor support for any of the accompanying information, except some variable names, so I’m still in favour of deleting it. —xyzzy_n 16:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: The primary author: because there is not ONE argument on this dfD page, that can be hold, and additionally most doesn't make any sense from almost every scientific point of view:
  

• xyzzy_n: Your statement/vote is not valid, because:

• It is much more then evident, that this article is not in any kind original research, and it is of same evidence, that you was already knowing this fact, when you was introducing the "BAN" over this page, so please tell at least all others, why you are "fighting" with such a power against this page.
• The situation about citation is also very widely discussed on the article, and it seems, that you didn't caught any of the facts, because otherwise you would never be able to argue in the way you did. You, and I, know with exact the same precision, that there was never a time period, when I was against citations, all the time! So please, why are you acting in this manner!
• As it can be understood, that you have a lot of troubles, to judge if the article is original research or not, and at the same time you are also not able to comprehend the special situation for citation, this is at least a superior evidence, that you are missing any spectroscopic background on absolutely all levels. But why, in this knowledge-situation you believe that it could be of any ethic to vote? As example, I would never be minded to vote, not for, nor against, a polite article about the special gravity, simple because I never studied it and I'm missing the required background, what is unremitting to vote!!!

• MarcoTolo: Your statement/vote is not valid, because:

• You self are declaring with all of your statement, that your spectroscopic background is, with exactly the same superior evidence, located at a similar place of science, like the one of xyzzy_n, sorry!.
• Your parallelism may sound interesting, but it documents at the same time, that you didn't realise, that this terminus technicus: "General Beer Lambert Law" is not coined by me. Please accept, that this term is well known, also that's why it's not WP:OR, and take a view at Google Inc.. You will find at least 35 citations not related with my name, have you seen, most of Universities –what surprise!!! And if you try to open any one of it, - what surprise again, everybody is trying to sell to you ONLY the "Special Beer-Lambert law" under the cover of the "General Beer Lambert Law", - very nice!!!
• From all what is explained, we must correct your statement, that this article is not in any case WP:OR! , and you have to accept, that only a declaration can't never be enough to vote this way!

• AndyZ _t: Your statement/vote is not valid, because:

• Even, if I agree, that we may discuss about the hint I placed into the article, maybe my father instinct, about removing it (this hint), it has never the power to justify any vote of your sign. Apropos, every thinking human with only a little spectroscopic background can show you the evidence of, with ease.
• Thank you Very, very much for the citation you listed along your arguments. But also you will have to accept, that 'your' cite is FOR and NOT AGAINST this article, because with your limited spectroscopic background you have not realised, that also ISA sells the "Special Beer-Lambert law" under the wrong cover of the "General Beer Lambert Law".

• Bduke: SORRY, also Your statement/vote is not valid, because:

• CONGRATULATION, You document the absolutely highest spectroscopic background of all who voted on this page, and you did it with quite a big gab in-between!! Even if it seems, that your spectroscopic background is not satisfying this situation, but only you have presented quite several constructive discussion statements, and that's for sure YOUR achievement of YOUR big, personal exertion during your literature search, Thank you very much for your work!!
• As you have worked out absolutely correct is, that everybody is able to find at least every part of "General Beer Lambert Law" in several publications, not only the one you cited, but that can only mean, that there is nothing left, that's NOT according to WP:OR.
• Even if it ever could happen, that your Note: "that this only holds if the different absorbing species do not interact with each other" should come true, it must miss all the power to validate your vote, anyway. Why? If we generate an Interim Balance Sheet:

1.) The terminus technicus is well known, and so it is allowed, according to WP:OR, that Wikipedia may contain an article with this particular headline.

2.) The content of the article is also well reported, even if mostly not correct, so it is still according to WP:OR.

3.) There is an absolutely significant difference between "Special Beer-Lambert law" and "General Beer Lambert Law", which cannot be closed by the "Special Beer-Lambert law", - what surprise!!!, so it is only legal, that both article exist within harmony.

4.) Also 'your' quite excellent citation is anyway presenting several mistakes, that's why I can't use it on the article page, but for a discussion page, it will be all time "adequate". But the citation situation is with it not really solved (WP:CITE). Please allow, that I will respond a little later to this problem.

• Now you have to accept, that the note of 'your' citation is completely wrong for the "General Beer Lambert Law", is it a surprise to you? What you think, where the name is coming from? And be told, that’s not the only lack of the "Special Beer-Lambert law", that is lost, on the way to the "General Beer Lambert Law". But that's only for you, and for sure, not a theme for this page.
• Finally for you: Even if it is hard to accept, you can not correct the "Special Beer-Lambert law" in the way you think, and I think you have already realized it, because you will affront any professor and any student, any industry, and who ever else in a very bad way. Think only as an Example what 'your' correction must have for consequences for ISA! So the coexistence of both articles makes live much easier!! About all other we can discuss every time at every place, if you like, - Thank you for all your elaborateness!!

• Arbusto: I think that except one sentence, there is nothing to tell. I believe, and I hope almost all others too, that every vote without the smallest argumentation has nothing lost, and should never be counted at all, in any scientific community, which has at least a minimum of ethic and politeness fixed on its banner!!!

• Arthur Rubin: Have you realized, that you have already prejudge yourself? WP:OR and WP:Nonsense, I think a more contrary pair is hardly to find, and you are not able to distinguish between? Please tell me why, by the heaven, you vote?

• xyzzy_n: Sorry, but also your new argumentation is not able to change either your kind of voting, nor your own professional competence, by not any iota, to this special theme, Sorry. But you are documenting afresh, that you have not "get" the situation at all. For at least me, these literature citations own already some coating of impoliteness, but you don't address it with any word. -Why?

Let's come to the citation problem, that still exist in a form/kind, that IS NOT COVERD by WP:CITE at all:

1.) We all know now, that absolutely every peace of the "General Beer Lambert Law" article is published thousand times on different places, as I told, and as AndyZ _t and Bduke have shown us.

2.) But we know too, that all citations contains at least one or more ERRORS, except one cite, but that cite is for me not allowed to use.

3.) Such a situation is not covert by any statement of WP:CITE, so the problem must be solved outside of WP:CITE, but must be kept as congruent as possible to WP:CITE.

4.) Citation would not be any problem, also for WP:CITE, if we would drop all ethic and all politeness, too, because we could use best citations and correct them with other citations, which are also wrong, but correct in the part we need to correct the first citations. I have to admit, that this procedure has not enough ethic and even not enough politeness, at least for me.

5.) Now the question is, but on the other hand, is it ethic, to delete a legal page (WP:OR), because the whole science in this field has gone wrong, and penalise all students, and everybody, only to be formalistic more then only correct?

6.) Could it be possible to fulfil the last 'letter' of WP:CITE ONLY to 98.9% and expose at the same moment an article with a known correctness of exactly 100% to everybody who is interested in knowledge? I think that's the final question we all have to solve/vote, because we know with the same true, that merging/correcting the "Special Beer-Lambert law" cannot be any solution with accordance to anything called ethic.

If we finally count the validated votes, we are constrained to end by ONE, because it is the only vote that is as correctly as possible legalised, not only formalistic, no also with all water of science, too. And this vote is red.

So I think that's for the moment all of the official part. Thank you all.

It took me so long to find out, that it is also for the primary author allowed to act on this page. Sorry about that.

Please allow me a frankly word to the end:

Is it really true, that absolutely no specialist in spectroscopy is a member of Wikipedia?

Is there also no student of chemistry/physics of a really higher semester known as a member?

If the situation is similar in all other disciplines, how long will Wikipedia survive, because we all know, that Wikipedia has already lost a good amount of goodwill?

ARGOS++ 23:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is a rant—I'm breathless just reading it. -- MarcoTolo 23:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I've read the article (in several versions), the author's comments here and on the the talk page, and I'm still not quite certain what this is all about, but it's now a little clearer. My original opinion stated at Talk:General Beer Lambert Law that it's original research at best still stands. I'm not a physicist, chemist or expert in spectroscopy myself, but I've consulted some who are and they all agree with me on this. The suggestion that Wikipedia will lose prestige by rejecting this clearly unsuitable material leads me to revisit my earlier suspicion that it may even be a prank. I've now a strong hunch that it is. Proof unnecessary, delete as OR in any case. Andrewa 13:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Coment: The primary author: It seems, that we have a big problem on this round table of a judge! I for my side trust very much in believing, specially if it is located an its right place, but as I have learned already a lot of years ago, believing in any scientific discussion must be at least as displaced as a big bull-shit on the soup plate for lunch. I normal feel a big respect for the believing of others, particularly if I meet a 'man of a church', but Andrewa, you overthrow me totally back into doubt. Is it now because you believe so much in 'your' User:Andrewa/creed, exposing fairness, politeness, and ethic, that makes you to arrogate: "Proof unnecessary, delete as OR in any case", or is there a believing in your stomach, that is more than compensating all 'your' User:Andrewa/creed, or, even if too worse to think, are User:Andrewa/creed only some nice words from a pulpit? What have I to believe in??? Please tell me!

• Why you also not accept the arguments from Bduke, which is an absolute clear evidence against ALL your 'experts of spectroscopy' at once? Or tell me how you understand the sentence from Bduke: "I think the only important point that the author is making is that the absorbance is the sum of terms for each absorbing species. This is of course well known.", including the given citation? Please accept, there is nobody as exact as hi, because that's exactly the major difference to the "Special Beer-Lambert law", but a sum OR not a sum is much more than only important, whatever you may believe, or not!!!
• I know, in case you don't believe even in Bduke, you will also not believe (but ignore) the following citations, I will add it anyway, and if it is only, to give (me?) any small chance to leave the doubt, if possible:

  6: Virginia Tech, Virginia, US, It tells, that it is one of 30 best in Chemistry!!

26: Institut de Physique nucléaire, Belgium.

24: Thermo Electron Corporation, Waltham, Massachusetts, US A very well known company in any field of any spectroscopy!!!

41: Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany I think a reference on its own!

40: University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada Please inspect slide number 10!

61: Institut für Physikalische und Theoretische Chemie Technische Universität, Braunschweig, Germany

62: Georgetown University, Washington DC, US Answer: CTQ3: !

64: University College London, London, UK London's Global University 180 Years. Please read Eq.: 2.8

71: Syddansk Universitet University of Southern Denmark What surprise: Eq.: 1.1 looks like a copy of mine, or vice versa!!!

83: IUPAC: International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, North Carolina, US Why IUPAC too? For sure, one of your most reliable references at all, and it is shooting into 'your' back! Have you seen, what a very nice Equation in Paragraph: 10.3.5.2.2!!!

89: Liverpool University for The Higher Education Academy Physical Sciences Centre, UK And here with picture and explanation!

That's only the yield of the first 100 Google results, so you may multiply this number by 6'920 (Google Inc. is pleased to tell you it knows 692'000 references for "Beer Lambert Law") to get an idea. Oh don't forget the following very extra important reference and surprise yourself with this for ever absolutely unachievable Sign of Quality and Professional competence in the discipline spectroscopy:

ww: Wikipedia/Molar_Absorptivity, World Isn't it nice? But the most important for the moment is, it can be used as a evidence for the "General Beer Lambert Law", very useful!

If you think, there is any comma, or even a dot left, we have finally not checked/"proofed", I know you will NOT inform me. So maybe the time has to teach you, that in the community of science evidence are unexceptionally betting every believing, -all the time, Sorry but why you gambled with all your acquired respect? – I still don't understand, with your User:Andrewa/creed in mind!

There is also a little space left for MarcoTolo:

I can easily accept, that there are countless disciplines in the world of science I'm missing any adequate knowledge, so I would never talk into any professional discussion of. But, please tell my, why are you doing it, as you clearly present, that you may have troubles to follow any clause of evidence? Your last comment (this general flowery phrase) allows no other judge. So, maybe you lost your breath, already before.

I think its already to much dedication, as your kind of counting is at least now "well known" and "well documented", too, but …

ARGOS++ 22:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There are several personal attacks in the above. I suggest you apologise. We can then take it from there. No change of vote. Andrewa 03:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am puzzled about what ARGOS++ says about my earlier comments. Let me clarify what I said. There is nothing to justify a separate article on the General Beer Lambert Law. Everything that can be said about generalisations including the extension to a mixture of absorping species should be included in Beer-Lambert law. --Bduke 05:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. As far as I can tell, none of the references claim that the law is a ‘is a NON-empirical basic law of the nature’, ‘can absolutely in no way been compared with the Literature’ or is ‘new’ (all quotations from [1]). —xyzzy_n 05:56, 8 May 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.