Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 27

human molecule (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Note: the article

The problem here is that the human molecule article never went through an afd; hence G4 does not apply and has been misused in this case. Moreover, the new 2010-version of the human molecule, was not a “a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy” as G4 defines for speedy; but rather an honest effort to summarize a very notable subject in a more neutral way, given three-years retreat from writing at Wikipedia. I’ve discussed this now with the deleting editor (Vickers) who suggests deletion review and have now also requested editorial help, in finding two or three Wikipedians to help me write the article, at physics, chemistry, economics, and sociology, project pages, with the general suggestion being that I go to deletion review.

It is my belief that a noted (albeit controversial) subject over 220-years old, with a half-dozen books written on it, that is taught in universities, and with, unbelievably, four near 100-foot tall statues made in tribute to this subject that it should be notable enough to have a summary Wikipedia article. What I would like is to be allowed to do then, is to be allowed to write-up a neutral, reliably sourced, article on the topic of the human molecule and then if anyone has objections to the new article, let someone formally propose an afd for the article. Libb Thims (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. The 2010 version may not have been identical, but it did not address the objections to the article raised in the AFD. If Libb Thims believes that he can create a version of the article that surmounts those issues, he can do so in the article incubator for review.—Kww(talk) 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That related deletion discussion, as I have already linked to above (10 Oct 2007), was for the particular article "human chemistry". The "human molecule" article, by contrast, while some may have objected to it, was cogent enough to be featured in October 2007 Did You Know? and was never sent to afd, but rather I requested it's deletion per G4. --Libb Thims (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use CSD codes, please use them correctly. I'm skeptical that you requested a deletion via G4: G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. If so, you are agreeing with me that the article was indeed covered by

WP:SYNTH. In summary, all content of this article was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry, that content was removed as a result of that discussion, and you have done nothing to repair that material.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I apologize, I was using the codes in reverse order. I have corrected the typos above. The original request for G7 is here. Having now digested your suggestion, the incubator idea might be a good path. Over the next few days (week at most), I'll write up a new version of the article in the incubator space, at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Human molecule, and there you, Tim Vickors, Coren, and whoever else (maybe some Wikipedia:Project members) can raise whatever objections, and I will do my best to address each objection one a time. Thanks. --Libb Thims (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at the time of the afd, i supported the article, but only if it was edited drastically,. The article now linked to above remains a combination of information about the historic use of it as a literary conceit, most notaably by Goethe in the novel Ellective Affinities, where they with a extension of the metaphor in ways that might be worth discussing, a cconsideration ofthe vague use opf "chemistry" to indicate romantic attraction, to an indication that it is being used as a serious sociological concept--which is fringe altogether and for which i am not sure there are any reliable sources. The present article is less confused than the past one, but is altogether oriented to the concept of it being a real sociological hypothesis, which I think nonsense, supported by such illustrations as a pile of multiple copies of the key author's books on a cart. I note our current article on Goethe's novel remains somewhat dominated that it was to even a slight degree a scientific theory, rather than the author's opportunity to work out a elaborate metphor by showing a playful intellectual game among the characters to justify their relationships. I am notsure the pressent editor will be able to rewrite the article objectively, in view of the amount of nonsense in the linked version. But he can try, and just possibly someone will fell inclined to make actual sense of it. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thanks for the comments. Today’s version is starting to fill out and has 21-references (ten more than when you last viewed it), none of which are from a “pile of multiple copies of my books on a cart”. I still have 14 more header sections to write. It is puzzling to me, I must say, as to why I am facing such resistance to write on this topic? Granted, most theorizers on this subject are long dead:

Pierre Teilhard (spent 25-years on this topic), etc. What I’m most likely going to do, when the new-version of the article is finished, is send the whole thing to afd myself so that the article can gather a formal consensus. --Libb Thims (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Please don't tell me that
  fringe, it's beyond that: this is a piece of original research kookery at its very worst. It's not even pseudoscience: it does not even try to be anything close to science. A textbook case of absurd absurdity cranked up to absurd. 80.135.29.39 (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If anything, that version has exaggerated the faults that led to deletion, not rectified them.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Kww, the problem here is that you have abused your admin powers by misusing G4 (speedy per "recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion") to delete the new-2010 version of the human molecule article I was attempting to start earlier this year. The 2007-version of the human molecule article was never sent to afd. Therefore, you cannot speedy an article that has never had an afd discussion. Secondly, you are admittedly impartial to my edits, as you have been labeled by other admins as a "shouter" for call to permanently ban me, a motion you have expressed on multitudes of pages and dates that I can't even begin to count. Therefore, to resolve this issue, and get a fair community vote on the subject "human molecule" is to finish the writing the article, stopping at the 100-reference level, then move the article into the main space, so I can add the missing images, then send the article to afd for community vote. I will likely be doing this within the next week. It would be enlightening if you could explain why you have such hate for me. I really don't even remember interacting with you prior to my writing the 2007 human chemistry article? --Libb Thims (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have abused nothing. It's just a really bad article, and you don't seem to understand that having this kind of article is not good for Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 14:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject you call “dreck”, or

No one is attacking you. Write an article that meets Wikipedia standards, and it will be allowed back. Perform original research, and it won't. It really is that simple: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for publishing original research of any kind.—Kww(talk)

The current version has 30 direct references to the term "human molecule", used in various ways (economics, sociology, psychology, literature, physics, chemistry, history, culture, etc). Why don't you try to explain to me what part of the article is "original research"? --Libb Thims (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are using references to multiple different concepts that are only vaguely related and relating them in ways that external sources do not. This paragraph is the best example:

Variations or near-synonyms of the term "human molecule" include: point atom (Humphry Davy, 1813), atomic society and social molecule (Thomas Huxley, 1871), economic molecule (Léon Walras, c.1880), human atom (Albion Small, 1899), human chemical (Thomas Dreier, 1910), human chemical element (William Fairburn, 1914), Mr. Molecule (William Patton, 1919), "chemical formula in operation" (George Carey, 1919), human element (Pierre Teilhard, 1947), social atomism (Philip Rieff, c.1960), dissipative structure (Ilya Prigogine, 1971), Molecule Man (Jonathan Borofsky, 1977), human atomism (Arthur Iberall, 1987), human particle (Joel de Rosnay, 1975), molar group (Pierre Levy, 1994), mereological atoms (Eric Olson, 1998), free electron (Tom DeMarco, 1999), molecular relationship (Joseph Dewey, 1999), gay molecule Y2, the lesbian molecule X2, or middle-Eastern polygamous molecule X4Y (Christopher Hirata, c.2000), child "precipitate" PPT (Karl Fink, 2001), couple "compound" M-F (David Hwang, 2001), family molecule (Paul Peachey, 2001), giant molecule (Jim Eadon, 2001), "well-formed molecule" (Farrelly brothers, 2001), "highly evolved, overgrown super-molecules" (Peter Pogany, 2006), "The Human Element" (John Claxton/Dow Chemical, 2006), social atom (Mark Buchanan, 2007), "bag of chemicals" (Michael Brooks, 2009), chemical molecules (Surya Pati, 2009), entromorphic atom or Mr. Carbon Atom (Mark Janes, 2009), corporate molecule (Vineet Nayar, 2010), etc., among others; each of which are derivative terms discussing different aspects of the same overall subject.

Your thesis is that these are all derivative terms discussing different aspects of the same overall subject. Without an external source tying these things together, it's

WP:SYNTHESIS. You can't make an article forwarding the proposition that there is a common subject tying these things together unless someone else states that common subject exists.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I would suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Merging. I’ll summarize the main guidelines for you for when to merge two related terms or topics into one:

1. Duplicate – There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
2. Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap.
   Flammability
   .
3. Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.

According to your argument then, either I content fork these various 30 different terms "on exactly the same subject" into 30 new stub articles or else be accused of doing original research? Maybe you should post notice to all the merge-tag happy people in Wikipedia that they are doing original research and that this is not allowed at Wikipedia. Any other original research issues with the article? --Libb Thims (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously arguing that an article that attempts to connect

Francois Massieu is simply merging 30 articles on exactly the same subject?—Kww(talk) 18:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Both you and

University of Paderborn for ten years now. Any other objections to the current article? --Libb Thims (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The discussion above doesn't seem to be getting anywhere - both sides have stated their positions, and neither are convinced by the arguments of the other. The deletion review has been open for almost 7 days, so in order to facilitate closing it, might I suggest that all interested parties briefly state their position below. Djr32 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the original decision to delete the article and delete the re-created version. The 2007 version of the article was deleted as
  WP:SYNTH, the new version suffers from exactly the same issue. Djr32 (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I’m out of time for the day, but briefly "NO the 2007 version was not deleted as

WP:SYNTH". The human molecule article NEVER went to afd or was even prodded. Kww improperly speeded an article I was attempting to write on the human molecule in June. He hasn’t yet admitted to this mistake, but whatever. I am now a few days away from finishing the new-version, based on all the constructive feedback, at incubator. When I am done and have finished incorporating all the suggestions for improvement, etc., I will move the article back into the main space. After which, it seems, the article will then likely get an official community afd vote. So, I guess there is really no need for this review to remain open. Feel free to archive or close it as resolved. Thanks --Libb Thims (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

If you move the article in its current condition back to mainspace, it will be immediately eligible for deletion again, so I wouldn't advise that. Note that no participants in this review have argued that my deletion was improper.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the "constructive feedback" you have received at the incubator, it seems to echo what you have received here.

• there are a lot of completely different philosophic and scientific ideas, allegories, technobabble and completely unrelated stuff mixed together under one umbrella
• The article seems to be a synthesis of not-notable references that are about the subject, joke references that are taken seriously, and off-topic subjects that appear related (but are not) all brought together to form a original thesis
• "human molecule" as you represent it there, is not a theory but a name for a lot of different things, some of them very much not being a theory at all

Given that, there isn't a consensus being developed anywhere that this article is suitable for Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 22:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's about this compromise: (1) I'll finish writing the article. (2) I'll move the article into mainspace. (3) I'll notify you of article completion and then you send the article to afd and explain to everyone why it should be deleted. Is this compromise fine with you? --Libb Thims (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Finish it in the incubator, get a consensus that the article meets Wikipedia standards, and then move it to mainspace. If you move it to mainspace before that consensus is reached, I'll probably speedy it under G4 again.—Kww(talk) 13:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]