Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laboratory report

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, borderline copyvio and perhaps OR. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laboratory report

Laboratory report (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The current article is clearly unacceptable (it is completely original research on how a lab report should be formatted!). So I was going to stubify it to something decent until I started to wonder what exactly an encyclopedic article about "lab report" could be. I can't see it being anything other than a dictionary definition. Pascal.Tesson 23:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. We are not a how-to guide. Perhaps put this on Wikihow? --Dennisthe2 23:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Not wikihow... they are direct competition to Wikimedia! transwiki to Wikibooks or Wikiversity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
  • merge any information deemed useful or relevant to Scientific paper. i don't see any problems with the article except its format and lack of sources. It seems legitimate that the topic of formal scientific papers and analyses be covered in Wikipedia rather than transwikied, so this should not be an issue. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The concerns can be solved by rewritting, no need to delete it as a whole. The theme itself is real and important.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I just realized that the article is a copyright violation of [1] to boot. Pascal.Tesson 13:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - copyvio or not, this is never going to be anything more than a dicdef. There is no reason for us to keep essays like this for even a second. Moreschi Request a recording? 14:05, 6 April 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.