Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohmefentanyl(2)
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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ohmefentanyl
This is the second AfD discussion for this article, the first, which resulted in delete at author's request is here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohmefentanyl. The article was recreated shortly after the block on the author, User:Nukclear, expired: [1]. This article is blatantly written like a research paper (e.g. "Results", "Conclusions", etc...) and is completely and near unsalvagably unencyclopedic. There also seems to be an ongoing effort to cleanup copyright violations on the talk page. The user in question is also creating numerous examples of similar articles, which I am listing for AfD in conjunction with this (unless an AfD already exists). A lot of work probably went into these (per number of edits and probably collecting a vast number of sources), so I would rather have it userfied at least for a while so it can be saved, but ultimately it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Other articles for consideration for same reasons:PT, Nocaine, Phenidate. See also AfD for SNDRI. Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as OR. Indatraline was included with the SNDRI discussion. There is a proper place for this work. That place is not Wikipedia. DarkAudit 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with the topics of the articles in question as they are all valid scientific topics (notable given the number of citations that the user managed to dish out), but they really do need to be gutted out and made into proper encyclopedia articles (my hand has been hovering over the edit button on a few of them, but I think I need a good night's sleep to attempt). -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 01:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite. Worthy of inclusion, but not in its current form, which seems to be nothing but a copy-and-paste from a journal article. —dustmite 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite It sounds like an interesting chemical and it would be nice to see an article about it, even a stub, written for a nonchemist. Sci girl 02:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
*Keep and Rewrite*Keep as rewritten and similarly for the others. The material is transparently taken from a journal article, and not appropriate for WP as is, but any pharmaceutically interesting molecule is worth an articleDGG 02:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Volunteers? WP:INTERESTING is not a proper argument, and you know it. The article in this form is far beyond the scope of Wikipedia. This would be fine in a university research library, but not here. My capabilities of doing it justice with a rewrite are nil. Do any of you three plan on being bold enough to give it a shot? DarkAudit 03:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm taking out the blatant copyvio stuff and paring it down a lot. Sci girl 06:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Useless Comment. Wow...she sent it to the guillotine :-P. Good job! -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm taking out the blatant copyvio stuff and paring it down a lot. Sci girl 06:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Volunteers? WP:INTERESTING is not a proper argument, and you know it. The article in this form is far beyond the scope of Wikipedia. This would be fine in a university research library, but not here. My capabilities of doing it justice with a rewrite are nil. Do any of you three plan on being bold enough to give it a shot? DarkAudit 03:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah well make sure you spend some time on it. Im too preoccupied with other projects to put the focus on that one. Im a drugschemist, not interested in biological garbage. Infact, I thought the whole point in this molecule is killing people, the poor mans hydrogen bomb :D --Nuklear 03:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The revised version is just what this sort of an article should be. Nice work DGG 04:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite There is a lot of good research in Nuklear's articles, and all well referenced. The content is definitely suitable for Wikipedia, just the way they are written is not. I would certainly not recommend deleting them though, just reorganizing and putting any copied material into proper original wording. Meodipt 05:31, 25 May 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.
