Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ETA index in QSAR


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: Non admin closure - nomination withdrawn because of agreement that the articles will be cleaned and merge andy (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

ETA index in QSAR

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. This is clearly original research - the author even supplies all his own references! andy (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating for the same reason. andy (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn because Boghog2 (talk)  has offered to merge and the author is happy with this. andy (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —andy (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Cleanup and Merge into Topological index and QSAR respectively. The citations supplied by the editor are for the most part in refereed journals and therefore by definition these articles are not original research.  On the other hand, I find it very troubling that editor is a co-author on most of these citations.  So the problem with these articles is WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT rather than WP:OR.  All of these problems would be solved by condensing and merging the ETA article with Topological index and the Validation article with QSAR. Boghog2 (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and Merge per Boghog2. MuffledThud (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: as far as I can tell the term "extended topochemical atom index" which is the subject of ETA index in QSAR was invented by the article's author. This search shows only 14 hits that don't mention his name... and they all link to papers that were written by him. As for Validation of QSAR models, the first version of the article is clearly lifted directly from a paper published by the author here and has subsequently been extended by him. So I'd now support the proposals to cleanup and merge provided a subject expert can be found to do it - the articles should not stand on their own for the reasons given and I don't think that the author is an appropriate person to merge the material for reasons of COI. andy (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2009 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.