Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chirotechnology

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 merge‎ to Chiral resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chirotechnology

Chirotechnology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely a definition of a term which is based upon a single source. A Google search finds very little beyond links to the same book, a small number of articles and a few companies that have names that are a variation of Chirotechnology. It is not a common term, so I do not see any rationale for keeping this page. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Chirotechnology clearly fails
  WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and due to the lack of proper sources it probably never will. Ships&Space (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Chiral resolution. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, Redirect is better than just delete. Do you want to add the book to Chiral resolution, which itself has mainly old refs; I disliked organic chemistry as an undergrad, so I am not willing to judge utility. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have the book, and probably the lack the skills to determine whether it would enhance the existing article or not. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The book has 962 cited in Google Scholar, and at least as important the author Roger A. Sheldon is definitely notable. I have therefore added it as Further reading where it is appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• merge into Chiral resolution so at least the term and its ref gets preserved, otherwise it would be a redirect without mention. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I obtained a copy of the book, and the word "chirotechnology" only appears in the title, the sentence of the forward section, "Only a few people are able to present the topic of chirotechnology from both its academic and industrial sides.", and the last sentence before the glossary, "Chirotechnology has come a long way since Pasteur first tackled racemic tartarate with a pair of tweezers." It doesn't appear in the book's glossary, index, contents or anywhere else I could find with a text search. Since that book is the only reference provided in the one-sentence article, no page number is cited, and from my search in the sketchy copy I obtained from a pirated ebooks site, I don't see it as something that needs to preserved as a source in the redirected article. It is possible that the copy I obtained is an incomplete copy. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with
  WP:NOTDICTIONARY but relates directly Chiral resolution which is a key challenge in chemistry. Merge seems better than redirect to preserve the term which is coined in a well-cited textbook by notable author. Jamietw (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]