| Revision as of 13:54, 4 October 2007 editKfc1864 (talk | contribs)1,954 edits →Human chemistry: -Strong keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:56, 4 October 2007 edit undoMandsford (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators68,523 edits →Human chemistryNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| *'''Keep'''. It seems to be an attempt by ] 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. ] ] 12:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. It seems to be an attempt by ] 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. ] ] 12:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Keep'''- may be eligible for B now, and GA-class a llittle improved.] ] ] 13:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC) | *'''Strong Keep'''- may be eligible for B now, and GA-class a llittle improved.] ] ] 13:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per Sjak ] 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:56, 4 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)
- 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)