| Revision as of 05:42, 7 October 2007 editThe Wikipedist (talk | contribs)231 edits →Human chemistry: Strong keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:58, 7 October 2007 edit undoKww (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers82,486 edits →Human chemistry: DeleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Comment'''. I believe there is notability for these concepts, but it may be better treated in one article than several that have unclear borderlines, and I suspect that article is ]. I definitely think this article needs renaming at the least and rescoping at best outcome, because as is it seems to be about human biochemistry rather than a metaphor for interpersonal relations. There's something here, but how to organize it is the question. Right now there is an element of ] throughout that doesn't seem backed up by a comprehensive ] review of the material. --] | ] <small>—Preceding ] comment was added at 05:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | *'''Comment'''. I believe there is notability for these concepts, but it may be better treated in one article than several that have unclear borderlines, and I suspect that article is ]. I definitely think this article needs renaming at the least and rescoping at best outcome, because as is it seems to be about human biochemistry rather than a metaphor for interpersonal relations. There's something here, but how to organize it is the question. Right now there is an element of ] throughout that doesn't seem backed up by a comprehensive ] review of the material. --] | ] <small>—Preceding ] comment was added at 05:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| *'''Strong keep''' Good article, and definitely not a publicity stunt. ] ] 05:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | *'''Strong keep''' Good article, and definitely not a publicity stunt. ] ] 05:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Delete''' An excellent example of gaming the system. Enormous numbers of references, mainly citing things that don't have anything to do with the article, by people that would be revolted if they were told that their work was supporting such dreck, all leading up to a misleading cite of a National Geographic article that uses the same words to mean a completely different thing, making it appear that the theory has some modern credence. Delete. Salt. Block the author from further creation. ] 10:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:58, 7 October 2007
Human chemistry
- Human chemistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This seems to be an attempt by User:Sadi Carnot to get publicity for a book and/or website. There are also other articles such as Interpersonal chemistry, Heat and affinity, and Human molecule, but I don't want to spam AFD with a ton of nominations. Ggreer 10:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems to be an attempt by User:Sadi Carnot to write an encylopedia article, and it looks like a very good effort as well. The author has cited a variety of sources, ranging back to the 1800s and up to today, and each paragraph is referenced. The article looks well researched, and the sourcing is very good, far better than the majority of articles. I see no evidence of any promotional stuff whatsoever in the article. Personally, I am skeptical of attempts to make analogies between human beings and atoms, they tend to be stretches of a theory to domains where they no longer hold, and I think this is more of a social science, rather than natural science article. Such concerns have no influence on the encylopedic validity of the subject in a general purpose encyclopedia however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- While the articles are well-referenced, most of the references are to papers either unrelated or only tangentially related, similar to what is going on at Thermoeconomics. This user seems to be writing many articles about fringe theories related to thermodynamics. The book Human Chemistry and the websites humanchemistry.net and humanthermodynamics.com are linked to in serveral articles (Human chemistry, Interpersonal chemistry, Heat and affinity, Georgi Gladyshev, Chemical affinity, Entropy and life), mostly authored by User:Sadi Carnot. These websites and books were created by Libb Thims. This makes make me think this character is pushing his or her pet theory. Also, this talk of applying thermodynamics to sociology/psychology comes from a fictional story called Elective Affinities. Doesn't anyone else take a look at all of this and think it's fishy? The user may be well-intentioned but many of the claims in these articles range from dubious to nonsense. Ggreer 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep- may be eligible for B now, and GA-class a llittle improved.Kfc1864 talk my edits 13:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Sjak Mandsford 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Sjak. Note that Ggreer has no edits outside this afd.--Lenticel 23:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: I had closed this as a non-admin closure, but due to concerns on my talk page I'm re-opening and relisting it. Ten Pound Hammer • 03:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I believe there is notability for these concepts, but it may be better treated in one article than several that have unclear borderlines, and I suspect that article is interpersonal chemistry. I definitely think this article needs renaming at the least and rescoping at best outcome, because as is it seems to be about human biochemistry rather than a metaphor for interpersonal relations. There's something here, but how to organize it is the question. Right now there is an element of synthesis throughout that doesn't seem backed up by a comprehensive secondary source review of the material. --Dhartung | Talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Good article, and definitely not a publicity stunt. The Wikipedist 05:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete An excellent example of gaming the system. Enormous numbers of references, mainly citing things that don't have anything to do with the article, by people that would be revolted if they were told that their work was supporting such dreck, all leading up to a misleading cite of a National Geographic article that uses the same words to mean a completely different thing, making it appear that the theory has some modern credence. Delete. Salt. Block the author from further creation. Kww 10:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)