Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Volume Electrolytic Purification of Salt Water Contaminated Radioactive Waste Water Streams


 * 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   speedy delete under criterion G7, request by author/sole contributor, based on Wjohnson100's last comment. I think it would also be fair to say that this could be a regular delete under WP:SNOW. —C.Fred (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

High Volume Electrolytic Purification of Salt Water Contaminated Radioactive Waste Water Streams

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original research, posted by User:Wjohnson100, who is likely related to the gentleman described as the creator of this process. - Philippe 07:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * the user wjohnson100 is Walter L. Johnson, the creator of this process as described in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjohnson100 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. &mdash; RHaworth 10:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for several reasons, the most important of which is the process lacking any notability, but also because of no mention in the press, being a pet concept by the SPA account that created the article and bordering on being a how to guide, very likely for the purpose of promoting the author. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no original research here, maybe original thought, but all the processes included are long proven industrial processes. The only unproven thing in this article is the numerical value of the volume reduction factors, which is calculated based on the quantity of NaCl in seawater and the solubility of NaOH and NaCl, all being established facts. As far as conflict goes, my only "interest" in publishing this here is to get it into the public domain and maybe be able to eat fish from the Pacific Ocean in the future. All that said, should you decide to delete this, it has still been a real learning experience and it is good to see all the comments and the desire to keep Wikipedia a quality reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjohnson100 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of original research. The "references" in the article are by and large internal links; the article appears to contain only the ideas of the author and nothing that's been reported in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Too much into the realm of original research. Taroaldo (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the context of wikipedia articles, original/novel synthesis of existing ideas is considered to be original research. It's not a judgment on the quality or value of any given original research, it would just be really hard to run Wikipedia in a way that met the standards we like for verifiability and such if original research were allowed.  I am glad to hear that you are not spoiled on the idea of WP over the potential deletion of this and I hope you stick around; feel free to drop by my page if you have any questions I can help with.  Kevin (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In light of that, feel free to delete without argument. At least I have learned how to do many things in this process. Very educational. Regards to all and thanks for the input. Walter L. Johnson 00:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjohnson100 (talk • contribs)
 * 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.