Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heat and affinity: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:45, 15 October 2007

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)[reply]

Also suffering from the same flaws and by the same author:

— Coren ^(talk) 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Particularly WP:OR. Pig^man 03:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "human chemistry" was. Original research and self-promotion. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 08:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment; I agree the subjects are different, but the flaws are the same, IMO, which is why I've joined them. — Coren ^(talk) 12:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete Heat and affinity -- original research. -- Ekjon Lok 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Could be useful to some, but others...not so much. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 *'''Neutral''' Could be useful to some, but others...not so much. —Signed by [[User:Kornfan71|<font color="red">KoЯn</font><font color="black">fan71</font>]]<sup> [[User talk:Kornfan71|<font color="red">My Talk</font>]]</sup><sub> [[User:Kornfan71/SB|<font color="black">Sign Here!</font>]]</sub> 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.  [[User:Colonel Warden|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. --[[User:Tree Kittens|TreeKittens]] 14:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)