Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass-to-charge ratio

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 of the debate was no consensus. Try RFC for this content dispute. --Ezeu 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] mass-to-charge ratio

The mass-to-charge ratio article is a primary source for mass spectrometry nomenclature and should be deleted based on No original research standards. Those portions that are not primary research should be merged with the mass spectrum article. The article arose from m/z misconception (deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M/z misconception) and in edits of the mass spectrometry page (see Talk:Mass_spectrometry#Could_the_m.2Fq_vandal_please_stop). Mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-10 mass-to-charge ratio resulted in a POV fork between mass-to-charge ratio and mass spectrum. The part of mass-to-charge ratio that did not relate to mass spectrometry was supposed to go in mass-to-charge ratio and the mass spectrometry part was supposed to go in the mass spectrum article. Unfortunately, all but one sentence of the mass-to-charge ratio article relates to mass spectrometry. The remainder either duplicates existing information in the mass spectrometry entry or constitutes original research that is a primary source for mass spectrometry nomenclature (it is referenced five times in the mass spectrometry article and the article's novel proposal to replace the accepted m/z with the new m/q notation makes this Wikipedia entry the top Google hit for 'm/q "mass spectrometer"). This notation is in conflict with the definitions that exist in the peer-reviewed literature (e.g. American Society for Mass Spectrometry [1] and IUPAC [2] - for an simplified overview see Ken Busch's Spectroscopy Magazine article: [3]), books (e.g. McLafferty ISBN 0935702253, Dass ISBN 0471330531, Siuzdak ISBN0126474710, Sparkman ISBN 0966081323, Grayson ISBN 0941901319, etc.) and on-line glossaries (e.g. The Little Encyclopedia of Mass Spectrometry [4], Pharmaceutical Mass spectrometry glossary [5], Base Peak Mass Spectrometry Glossary of Terms [6], Spectroscopy Magazine Glossary [7], Shimadzu Mass Spectrometry Glossary [8]). The POV and accuracy of the article have been repeatedly flagged and the author has each time removed these flags. The article makes many valid points and contains some novel suggestions on how to improve the existing nomenclature. However, advocating this non-standard point of view in a Wikipedia entry is counterproductive and will only serve to cloud the issue and make consensus building within the mass spectrometry community more difficult.

--Kmurray 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kmurray is not telling the truth

He is telling the story from the perspective of a small part of the scientific community which has established its own nomenclature which is not used by the rest of the scientific community, nor is it compatible with the international standards issued about exactly this topics, the ISO 31. Here are the facts:

0) The article expresses the standard view given by ISO 31 whereas Kmurray's version is non-standard.
1) mass-to-charge ratio is a quantity that is used by a wide field of sciences, not only the mass spectrometry part. Therefore mass spectrometrists should stop hijacking this term on Wikipedia
2) even within the mass spectrometry community many people realize that the IUPAC definitions are boguous, incoherrent and not in line with ISO 31 and therefore should be abandoned.
3) Kmurray as the chairman of the IUPAC group [9] that should prepare a revised set of definitions for the IUPAC. Unfortunately he is not qualified for this job. He does not understand the basics of metrology, he continuously mixes up quantities with units, he does not know the ISO 31 document whith which his work should comply.
4) In order to cover up his dismal track record he tries to hijack and delete the mass-to-charge ratio page, because it includes definitions that are according to the wider and more basic ISO 31 standards instead of the boguous, incoherent and outdated Kmurray standards.
5) Since Kmurray is running out of arguments he is now trying to have this page deleted. He is trying to censure the internet from facts he doesn't like.
6) Everyone willing to invest the (unfortunately huge amount of) time to read the relevant documents documents will see that the page is correct and should not be deleted.
7) The reason why he wants to delete this page is because he thinks the definition 1 Th == 1 u/e is not in line with what Cooks and Rockwood wrote in their article. They wrote: 1 Th = 1 u/atomic charge. e is the internationally accepted symbol for the elementary charge which is equivalent to the atomic charge unit. Now, you be the judge.
8) Conclusion: he is looking for a straw-man reason to delete the article. The real reason is that he does not want to comply to the international standards to which the article complies.
9) Kmurray is advocating his own boguous terminology, against the internationally accepted standards of ISO 31. Please check yourself:

relevant documents:

  • ISO 31-0 introductory part of international standard ISO 31 on quantities and units. This is the document with which all scientific communities should comply, and to which Kmurray's IUPAC unfortunately does not comply.
  • BIPM SI brochure
  • Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry (IUPAC green book). This excellent ducument explains nomenclaure to be used by chemsists. Unfortunately Kmurray's group is not complying to this document.
  • Chapter 12: Mass Spectrometry in the IUPAC orange book is supposed to define nomenclature for mass spectrometry. Unfortunately it is not in line with the more basic documents above. Unfortunately, some terms are ill defined and confusing. Kmurray is heading the group that should improve this document. Instead, he decides to delete articles on Wikipedia.
  • Mass
  • Charge
  • Mass spectrometry and m/z
  • Cooks, R. G. and A. L. Rockwood (1991). "The 'Thomson'. A suggested unit for mass spectroscopists." Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 5(2): 93.
  • NIST on units and manuscript check list
  • Physics Today's instructions on quantities and units
  • International Vocabulary of Basic Terms in Metrology (Second edition 1993: ISBN 92-67-01075-1); a guide whith contributions of the following organizations: IUPAP, IUPAC, ISO, OIML, IEC, IFCC.
  • IUPAP Red Book SUNAMCO 87-1 "Symbols, Units, Nomenclature and Fundamental Constants in Physics" (unfortunately does not have an online version).
  • Symbols Units and Nomenclature in Physics IUPAP-25 IUPAP-25, E.R. Cohen & P. Giacomo, Physics 146A (1987) 1-68.
  • AIP style manual

[edit] Please note the POV push above

Please realize the author of the unsigned argument is Kehrli. Please check his user page it will tell you everything you need to know. He is an advocate and makes some good points but he is an advocate nonetheless. The contents of his rant have nothing to do with if the article should be deleted. They have to do with an argument to change an accepted notation system (that happens to be old, antiquated, in desparate need of improvement and largely incompatible with ISO 31) to something new and better. However this change has not happened yet. Someday it will and then we will write an article about it. As Kehrli points out the nomination for deletion was made by the head of the relevant IUPAC commitee. Whatever IUPAC says is standard no matter how we may disagree. --Nick Y. 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Nick, my nomenclature is in line with IUPAC green book, whereas yours is not. Kehrli

[edit] Please note the POV push above

  1. Please realize the author of the above POV is advocating a minority view of a small and irrelevant IUPAC project group [10] over the well established ISO 31 standard.
  2. Please note that the nomenclature of this small and irrelevant IUPAC project group [11] is only made for mass spectrometry of analytical chemists, not for the the rest of the scientific community that uses mass-to-charge ratios.
  3. Please note that the opinion of this small and irrelevant IUPAC project group [12] does not even comply with the more important IUPAC green book of the same organization.
  4. Please note that the opinion of this small and irrelevant IUPAC project group [13] does also not comply with the more fundamental and important IUPAP red book.
  5. Please note that I agreed with Nick that even though his nomenclature is restricted to mass spectrometry only, both standards should be represented. - Now he infamously breaks this agreement and voted to delete the article presenting the nomenclature according to the ISO 31 standard, the IUPAC green book and the IUPAP red book.
Kehrli

[edit] voting

  • Delete Agreed 100%. For further evidence readers and observers may be interested in the orginal research and POV posted on Kehrli's main page which is nearly identical to the previously mentioned m/z misconception page that was deleted for original research and POV. It is also similar but not identical to the state of the mass-to-charge ratio page being considered for deletion about two months ago. This page is no longer as blatantly POV and original research however it is nonetheless, no matter how subtle. That the accuracy is disputed, there is POV and original research would be bonus reasons for quick deletion. However the point that it is redundant except for one sentence should be sufficient. This is a candidate for deletion not quick deletion. It is not spam or a hoax just redundant.
--Nick Y. 21:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Nick, the reason why there is much redundancy is that you stole my content and copied it to the mass spectrum page. Therefore, please remove all discussions about mass-to-charge ratio from the mass spectra article and make references to the mass-to-charge ratio article instead. Kehrli 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Nick, in the mean time there are many more differences since I worked a lot on the mass-to-charge ratio page. Your statement that there is complete redundance except for one scentence is no longer true. Kehrli 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment - is there actually an inherent problem with the article/topic itself of is the purpose of the AFD listing just to win a content dispute? Looking at the talk page, it looks to me like there has been a month-long argument and this AFD could be inferred to be just a content dispute. BigDT 21:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There was a content dispute which resulted in the article being partially (the mass spectrometry part) merged into mass spectrum with this article being the article for the majority of scientific fields (physics etc.). Yes, the accuracy and POV of this article remains in question, however the main point of the AFD is redundancy.--Nick Y. 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
No, there is no question about the accuracy and POV of this article. It represents the nomenclature as given by the internationallly accepted ISO 31 standards, whereas Nick and Kmurray are pushing for a minority opinion only shared by some people (not all) in the mass spectrometry community. Kehrli 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • In that case, I would say Weak Delete, though personally, I would kinda like to hear from someone on the other side of the content dispute before it gets deleted.
I have just added some comments from the other side. Kehrli 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Verify if it is scientifically correct. It does not really look original research. Might be useful (because much shorter), than the long mass spectrum article. It is a related concept. Original research means to introduce new theories, not to remap existing knowledge, or to spell a formula/calculation method. See Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Mass-to-charge_ratio - looks very disputed, not the 1st time. Deletion vote overly long and difficult to understand for non-science people.
    • Weak keep if scientifically correct, looks formula spelling, not OR. User:Akidd_dublin 9 may 2006
comment most of mass-to-charge ratio was copied from mass spectrometry and some of it was written by me.--Nick Y. 16:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am completely appalled that scientists can not reach agreement here. There is no real big deal. We, and I speak as a scientist here, deal with differences in units and so on all the time. When I publish in the Journal of Chemical Physics, I hate having to use kcal/mol rather than the SI kJ/mol, but I do not make a big deal of it. Come on, stop grand-standing. Write it in a NPOV way - some people use this expression and these units and some people use this expression and these units. You should not be fighting like this. If deleting this article stops this childish fighting, it might be the best outcome. --Bduke 12:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I am also compelled that some scientists want to delete the ISO 31 compatible nomenclature just in order to replace it with a version that is outdated and boguous. I agree that there is space for different units. There was an agreement until Kmurray put this AFD: ISO 31 compliant version is on mass-to-charge ratio and the non-compliant version is on mass spectra. Therefore we need to keep the article. Otherwise I will have to start revising the mass spectra article in order to make it ISO 31 compliant. Kehrli 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You miss my point. kcal/mol is outdated. We still use them. Wikipedia is not the place to debate which units are correct. We follow what people use. Wikipedia is certainly not the place to argue that some units are boguous. Stop it. I am not just getting at you. The other side is just as bad. Just learn and accept what Wikipedia is about. There is no need to think that you "have to start revising" anything. --Bduke 12:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Bduke, you miss the point. kcal/mol may still be used and has its place on Wikipedia, but kJ/mol should not be deleted, because (i) some people use kJ/mol, (ii) kJ/mol is the ISO 31 compliant unit. Therefore wee need both. And you are now voting for just keeping kcal/mol. Kehrli 06:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Kherli does not get your point. I have tried to explain this to him. I abandoned the article because he does not get this point. As a scientist unfamilar with this particular area I should infom you that your analogy is totally correct. What is represented on this page is not a standard notation. Please take a look at Kehrli's user page to understand his argument for change to this new system to make it more in line with other standards. The AfD is based on redundancy. The fact that it is advocacy of a new unit system is just a bonus.--Nick Y. 16:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Nick, I am not advocating a new unit system, I am defenting what is the ISO 31 standard which is the most important standard in this field. You are advocating a minority view to replace the majority standard. That is what is happening here. Kehrli 06:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. After further consideration of this mess, I am convinced that Nick Y. is correct when he states that on Wikipedia we do not debate standards but accept, for now, what IUPAC states. The argument on both sides has been far to strident. Delete this and start over without argueing about standards. --Bduke 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Bduke, nobody is arguing about standards. It is just about which standard to use, e.g if both standards should be represented or just one. There are two standards in place, the wider ISO 31 and the very narrow (mass spectromeytry only) IUPAC yellow book standard, which is not in line with the ISO 31 standard. You are now voting for the deletion of the widely accepted terms that comply with the ISO 31 standard and instead want to keep the page that advocates the narrow standard that is only used by mass spectrometrists and is not used by the rest of the scientific community. My point is: IUPAC has established a non-compliant standard, which is ok, but we still need to keep the wider ISO 31 standard and therefore we should not delete the article. Kehrli 06:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - having read all of the stuff above, I'm forced to conclude that the AFD is being used as a ploy in a content dispute. Take it to arbitration. AFD is not the place to settle the content dispute. I don't know who's right and who's wrong. IUPAP or IUPUI ... whatever ... AFD is not the place to settle this.
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.