Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:46, 8 October 2007 editTree Kittens (talk | contribs)518 edits →Human chemistry: delsort← Previous edit Revision as of 05:04, 8 October 2007 edit undoTimVickers (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users58,183 edits →Human chemistry: deleteNext edit →
Line 17: Line 17:
*'''Comment'''. I think we should pay ''serious'' attention to the concerns expressed by ] and ]. I am not voting yet, but I am concerned that much of this article is a violation of ]. Observe this paragraph, for example: <blockquote>In the groundbreaking fourth chapter, the characters detail the world’s first ever verbally-depicted human double displacement chemical reaction. The chapter begins with description of the affinity map (reaction map) or ‘topographical chart’ as Goethe calls it. On this reaction map, we are told that on it ‘the features of the estate and its surroundings were clearly depicted, on quite a large scale, in pen and in different colors, to which the Captain had give a firm basis by taking trigonometrical measurements’. This is equivalent, in modern times, to the use of trigonometric measurements of approach angles and topologies on free energy maps when modeling the encounter complex between two or more molecules on a receptor surface grid.</blockquote> Now this is referenced to a chapter on protein binding in a book called ''Drug-Receptor Thermodynamics''. I have not read the source, and I am assuming good faith, but I find this ''highly'' suspicious. We need some expert help here. --] 04:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Comment'''. I think we should pay ''serious'' attention to the concerns expressed by ] and ]. I am not voting yet, but I am concerned that much of this article is a violation of ]. Observe this paragraph, for example: <blockquote>In the groundbreaking fourth chapter, the characters detail the world’s first ever verbally-depicted human double displacement chemical reaction. The chapter begins with description of the affinity map (reaction map) or ‘topographical chart’ as Goethe calls it. On this reaction map, we are told that on it ‘the features of the estate and its surroundings were clearly depicted, on quite a large scale, in pen and in different colors, to which the Captain had give a firm basis by taking trigonometrical measurements’. This is equivalent, in modern times, to the use of trigonometric measurements of approach angles and topologies on free energy maps when modeling the encounter complex between two or more molecules on a receptor surface grid.</blockquote> Now this is referenced to a chapter on protein binding in a book called ''Drug-Receptor Thermodynamics''. I have not read the source, and I am assuming good faith, but I find this ''highly'' suspicious. We need some expert help here. --] 04:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>—] 04:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)</small> *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>—] 04:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)</small>

*'''Strong delete''' - About half of this article is original research of the worst kind - semi-plausible twaddle with references that support a few of the facts, but none of the syntheses. The remainder of the article is true as it goes, but merely charts a few uses of an analogy, rather than describing a genuine field of study. This is junk. ] 05:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:04, 8 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)
  • Keep. It might now be appropriate to put a book cover right at the top of the article, but that doesn't mean the whole article needs to go. It looks like there are several books on this topic so I don't see why you think the topic is inappropriate. --Zvika 11:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good article. Colonel Warden 12:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think we should pay serious attention to the concerns expressed by User:Kww and User:Ggreer. I am not voting yet, but I am concerned that much of this article is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Observe this paragraph, for example:

    In the groundbreaking fourth chapter, the characters detail the world’s first ever verbally-depicted human double displacement chemical reaction. The chapter begins with description of the affinity map (reaction map) or ‘topographical chart’ as Goethe calls it. On this reaction map, we are told that on it ‘the features of the estate and its surroundings were clearly depicted, on quite a large scale, in pen and in different colors, to which the Captain had give a firm basis by taking trigonometrical measurements’. This is equivalent, in modern times, to the use of trigonometric measurements of approach angles and topologies on free energy maps when modeling the encounter complex between two or more molecules on a receptor surface grid.

    Now this is referenced to a chapter on protein binding in a book called Drug-Receptor Thermodynamics. I have not read the source, and I am assuming good faith, but I find this highly suspicious. We need some expert help here. --TreeKittens 04:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —TreeKittens 04:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - About half of this article is original research of the worst kind - semi-plausible twaddle with references that support a few of the facts, but none of the syntheses. The remainder of the article is true as it goes, but merely charts a few uses of an analogy, rather than describing a genuine field of study. This is junk. Tim Vickers 05:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Categories: