Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heat and affinity
From 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 both. -- Jreferee t/c 17:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Heat and affinity
Much like Human chemistry, recently deleted via AfD. The article is a collection of original research and speculation and a barely veiled promotion for the author's book. The references either do not support the article, or are simply unrelated. — Coren (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Also suffering from the same flaws and by the same author:
— Coren (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. Particularly WP:OR. Pigman 03:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as "human chemistry" was. Original research and self-promotion. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 08:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. As much as I argued for deleting Human chemistry, I think that the case here is different. Interpersonal chemistry looks like it may be a legitimate topic deserving of an article, so whatever flaws the article has can be fixed through editing. Regarding Heat and affinity, I'm not so sure about the topic, but the article has a lot of useful content that could be merged into relevant articles about the history of chemistry. I suggest discussing these two articles separately, because they are too unrelated to bunch up in the same AfD. --Itub 09:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both, they're meandering original-research essays which link together divers sources to advance an argument that none of them make. <eleland/talkedits> 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete Interpersonal chemistry. Obvious original research of the most blatant kind. Note that WP:OR also means "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". -- Ekjon Lok 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Heat and affinity -- original research. -- Ekjon Lok 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Could be useful to some, but others...not so much. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Interpersonal Chemistry is an excellent article on a notable subject. It has little to do with the Heat and affinity article which seems quite a separate matter. Conflating the two articles in order to delete the better of them in a peremptory way seems an abuse of this process. Colonel Warden 02:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I believe some centralised analysis of these articles and others clearly created by the same person is now needed. I now support the imposition of an indefinite ban. I do not say it lightly. --TreeKittens 14:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt that posting that you want him banned every time you post at a related AfD is going to work, and is off-topic. I suggest you look at WP:DR (probably at WP:RFC) for more appropriate channels if that's what you want. --Itub 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies - I didn't know the correct forum even though the issue of a ban had been raised by other users. "Every time you post" is an exaggeration - I have posted it once at my AfD, and once here. Nowhere else. I am somewhat dismayed that few seem interested in helping me despite the exhaustive efforts I have put in to reading this braille and interpreting it for far more experienced and educated editors. I will not comment again. Apologies --TreeKittens 17:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the exaggeration, I think I was thinking of Kww, who posted several times along the same lines. --Itub 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- No worries :-) TreeKittens 00:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the exaggeration, I think I was thinking of Kww, who posted several times along the same lines. --Itub 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies - I didn't know the correct forum even though the issue of a ban had been raised by other users. "Every time you post" is an exaggeration - I have posted it once at my AfD, and once here. Nowhere else. I am somewhat dismayed that few seem interested in helping me despite the exhaustive efforts I have put in to reading this braille and interpreting it for far more experienced and educated editors. I will not comment again. Apologies --TreeKittens 17:08, 15 October 2007 (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.
