Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chem


 * 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, then dab —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 01:52Z 

Chem


Article is full of WP:OR. Very confusing situation as the talk page says the correct word is Kemet. Article may have been started as a misunderstanding of the whole subject. No sources given, notability rather unclear MartinDK 16:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * oppose: your suggestion is unfair to the people who have contributed thus far. 90% of wiki articles have no sources deleted so good luck having them deleted, also on notability: this is simply a specialist topic. We are also trying to pull together a Chemistry (etymology) article in which this article may play a modest role. I am not participating directly in this matter because of past run-ins with people eager to delete stuff but why not have the article redirected to Min (god)? See also my comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chemistry_%28etymology%29 V8rik 17:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is about black soil in ancient Egypt. So is the Kemet article. I was reacting to the tagging of the article as original research and the fact that the word Chem appears to be the incorrect word for that subject. If this can play a modest role in your planning of a future article then by all means do so. I do not object to that at all. But the article cannot just sit there as it is now which is why the confusing situation over two articles dealing with the same topic must be resolved. I leave it to my fellow editors to judge that. MartinDK 18:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say redirect to either Min (god) or Chemistry and use the other bits that are correct in the articles they fit into (such as kemet). And just get rid of that chem = cool stuff at the bottom.  --humblefool&reg; 21:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Kemet, and then delete. --Tango 15:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: As I stated on the article's talk page, all this "article" consists of are layers of uninformed speculation that builds upon more speculation that goes back to an old and long discredited error, adding up to a very dense folk etymology. IMO, the article has very little validity beyond showing what can happen if sources are not cited. If there is anything of genuine importance (which I personally doubt, but if...), it can be put on some other article(s)' page. Flembles 14:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.