Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in chemistry


 * 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 this problem didn't get solved either. There's a lot of text here, and good arguments on both sides, I ultimately can't see a consensus one way or the other. There's a transwiki request up to move it to Wikiversity. I hope discussion on that is productive, it does indeed appear that Wikiversity may be a better home for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsolved problems in chemistry

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Such a page is inherently PoV. Who decides that a problem is "unsolved"? Who decides that a "problem" is a "problem"? If this page is kept, I would wish to add "Why doesn't Physchim62 earn enough?" as the greatest unsolved problem in chemistry... Physchim62 (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Professional scientists can decide what a great unsolved problem is. Just look in the literature. Some common sense is also needed. Certain colleges even spend parts of their courses talking about what the unsolved problem are in disciplines such as physics and chemistry. It helps to establish what we know and we don't know and what type of new research is required in the future. Heliumballoon 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a professional scientist, I have given my "greatest problem in chemistry"; my partner agrees we me, should we place it on the page? :P Physchim62 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The unsolved problems in chemistry page suffers from exactly the same problems as the unsolved problems in biology page, which is currently nominated for deletion (see Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination).

The mere concept of "unsolved problems" does not really apply for chemistry. Famous single unsolved problems exist in the formal sciences like mathematics (see unsolved problems in mathematics) and in the applied sciences. For natural science, the "unsolved problems" are hidden in -and dictated by- the respective objects of study and nature.

The resulting lack of criteria for inclusion has resulted in an accumulation of randomly selected and often minor chemical topics, vague questions, non-chemistry topics, already or partly solved problems, pseudoscientific problems, and problems that could never be solved by scientific methods. The current version is a good example for that and the mentioned problems are obvious for any biologists or chemists. While readers who are not experienced in this field might find that collection interesting, it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to keep purely entertaining articles (beside those eye-catchers on the main page).

An introduction into chemistry topics and an impression about research in this field is already given by our chemistry article the respective subdisciplines linked from there. A complete list of all possible chemical topics would not be useful and is beyond an encyclopedic article. A random selection of topics would be inherently biased and would thereby violate Neutral point of view and, perhaps, No original research. It is also immanently impossible to find reliable sources for a certain selection or inclusion, see Reliable sources.

Also judging from the contents on this page during the past years, this article is not manageable and can never become an encyclopedic article and should be deleted (the only alternative to deletion would be a precise definition of what belongs into this article and what not, but after thinking about this for a long time now, I could not come up with one). Cacycle 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - While this information is not cited, if it is valid, it could be potentially quite useful, and would be useful to someone. It seems a waste to simply delete. --Remi 10:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - there is consensus about this is scientific journals and textbooks. It also helps to define what new areas chemistry is exploring. Heliumballoon 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am still not sure if you can imagine (after being here for only 14 days and 36 edits mainly in edit wars and policy discussion), how difficult it is to keep articles manageable if there is not the slightest agreement on what belongs there and what not. The big problem is that there is not any agreement on what makes a notable "unsolved problem in chemistry". But feel free to provide reliable sources to back up your claim. Cacycle 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Alas my username is so young and tender and so wet behind the ears..... Here are some specific peer reviewed articles that talk about an "unsolved problem" in chemistry. Defining the frontiers of science is something scientists do all the time and is very useful to know - surely worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.


 * 1. Science magazine devoted a whole issue to 125 unsolved puzzles and questions. First 25 Next 100  Here are a few that are relevant to chemistry. What is the structure of water? Researchers continue to tussle over how many bonds each H2O molecule makes with its nearest neighbors. What is the nature of the glassy state? Molecules in a glass are arranged much like those in liquids but are more tightly packed. Where and why does liquid end and glass begin? Are there limits to rational chemical synthesis? The larger synthetic molecules get, the harder it is to control their shapes and make enough copies of them to be useful. Chemists will need new tools to keep their creations growing. Can we predict how proteins will fold? Out of a near infinitude of possible ways to fold, a protein picks one in just tens of microseconds. The same task takes 30 years of computer time.
 * 2. CHEMISTRY: Polymers Without Beginning or End Tom McLeish (20 September 2002) Science 297 (5589), 2005. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1076810] "Natural polymer molecules dominate biology, while artificial polymers are used as plastics or emulsifiers in countless modern products. Many characteristics of their crystalline, glassy, and fluid states can be traced back to the special properties generated by the ends of the molecules. But what would happen if there were no ends? What would be the properties of polymers composed entirely of closed loops?.......The new polymers may not immediately result in new, competitive products, but they stand every chance of clarifying some unsolved puzzles of polymer science.
 * 3. Chemistry: Enhanced: Putting Molecules Behind Bars Steven C. Zimmerman (25 April 1997) Science 276 (5312), 543. [DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5312.543] One of the most fundamental unsolved problems in chemistry is predicting, based solely on its molecular structure, how a molecule will pack in the solid state....
 * 4. presented here  Unsolved Problems in Nanotechnology: Chemical Processing by Self-Assembly - Matthew Tirrell - Departments of Chemical Engineering and Materials, Materials Research Laboratory, California NanoSystems Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara. The title of this paper says it all. It was presented at the department of Chemical Engineering at The Ohio State University - Centennial of the Department’s founding - April 24-25, 2003
 * 5. The French Chemical Society has a list of 10 problems with various sub-categories for Chemistry in the 21th Century that needed solving. Among them are questions such as: Why CO2 does not form a network like quartz? Devise structural methods that allow you to see how enzymes work in real time. N2 activation 70% of the air. Can we use it selectively and cost-efficiently to make organic compounds, e.g. amino acids? (Really) stable amorphous or glass materials. Stable for ever, whatever the Tg (i.e. fight thermodynamics) "Steath prodrugs" In order to, for instance, solubilise insoluble drugs (other than CDs, micelles, nano suspensions, super solvents, emulsions etc): a prodrug that would be formed only when the active is placed in contact with water (so that there is no need to describe and characterize the prodrug, but only the active), and would release the active immediately after administration to patient (so that there is only the active circulating in the plasma). Heliumballoon 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Commment- If this is kept, there should be some other inclusion-criterion. Should any little problem be inclduded? What makes a problem "large enough" that it merits a mention on this list? At the cutting-edge of any dicipline there will be a near-infinite amount of unsolved problems. Some of these will be solved after being "unsolved" for only a short period of time, since the reason they are unsolved are more because they are NEW problems than DIFFICULT problems. Only including problems that have been unsolved for say, five years, will give the list greater stability, but the number of unsolved problems will still be too large, I think, to include them all. My vote therefore must be delete in its current form, or keep with more restricitive and less arbitrary inclusion criteria.Dr bab 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This will never become an encyclopedic article, it is not manageable, not the slightest clue and agreement exists for inclusion (and exclusion) criteria, the list title is a misconception about the nature of chemistry, and it violates many Wikipedia policies (see nomination). Cacycle 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * strong keep as per heliumballoon. clearly mentions why this is notable and verifiable.  in addition, i don't see why this editor's particular edit history or time with wikipedia has anything to do with the validity of their vote or argument.  i'm CERTAIN after reading numerious writings by Jimbo Whales about how this is a democratic community that is entirely out-of-line.  In the U.S., your vote doesn't count any less just because you're 18.  Kudos to heliumballoon on responding very well and good-naturedly to it, but I still think it was out-of-line. Barsportsunlimited 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is interesting how this discussions attracts voters that have been around for only a week and that have not made a single article edit. Cacycle 20:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also interesting that instead of making statements to refute the arguments for keeping the article, you instead choose to attack the editing records of those who support keeping the article. -Interested2 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Cacycle's comment above is really out of line. Ad hominem is not a suitable way to discuss this.  The real solution to edit issues in the Unsolved Problems series may be to identify people who will keep an eye on the articles, but fundamentally agree with the concept itself, rather than to delete the article.  I sense frustration over having to edit out had entries to the point where even reasonable entries ones are reflexively deleted without proper consideration or justification. Ohwilleke 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It should be obvious why I made the above comments (hint: Single-purpose account and Sock_puppetry). My main point is that we need exact criteria for this page, otherwise we will inevitable have endless arguments and frustration. But nobody voting to keep this article has suggested any so far. Cacycle 01:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments and suggestions. The concept of chemistry having unsolved problems goes back a long way and it is something that is defined and accepted in the scientific community. Linus Pauling, the nobel prize winner famously lectured on it in his time Let us turn to day. Many colleges lecture on it today. The University at Buffalo has a course (Chemistry 455-Advanced Organic Chemistry I (3)) that spends some of its time with unsolved problems in chemistry. Harvard's Chemical biology department says that "the courses offered by the program will emphasize concepts, unsolved (or partially solved) problems". Daniel Raleigh, Professor at Stony Brook University while describing his research says "An understanding of how proteins fold is one of the major unsolved problems of modern biochemistry" I hope at this point I have convinced people that it can be well defined.


 * So next how to define it? Well how about either one of the following:
 * That which in the scientific literature is seen as being an major unsolved problem.
 * The frontier of chemistry (what it is that people are trying to do but have not done yet) - eg the use of gold nano particles to deliver drugs.
 * Conceptual problems where empirical results contradict theory or areas where one theory contradicts another.
 * Areas where we do not understand why something occurs empirically (we have no theory at all). eg Why do fluorines have such unusual properties?


 * All arguments would need to be justified by quoting the appropriate literature. So one could either show that the literature says 'X' is a major unsolved problem. Or one shows that the literature says that one of the other categories apply and that the case is not trivial. Thus it would be recommended that this is something that would be left to practicing scientists. Heliumballoon 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate this very first suggestion of possible criteria. But with this you essentially say that anything that is a current research topic can go on this page. There are hundred thousands of such topics, and every second introduction to a scientific article mentions an "unsolved problem". We need notability criteria. Your "everything goes" approach has been proven unmanageable over the last years and has led to more than one deletion request.


 * These would be my minimum requirements for an "unsolved problem in science" article:
 * It should be well known as an important unsolved problem by everybody graduating in the respective field
 * It should be well recognized by anybody in this field, independent of his subdiscipline
 * It should have traditionally (i.e. over a certain timespan) be referred to as one of the important "unsolved problems" in that field
 * It should be a well defined significant single problem and not just an incremental and gradual increase in knowledge
 * It should not be just the rephrasing of the topic of an existing subdiscipline in that science
 * All list entries on unsolved problems in physics, unsolved problems in mathematics, and unsolved problems in philosophy pass this test easily. Now try to find the "unsolved problems in chemistry". Cacycle 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a problem with the requirement "It should be well recognized by anybody in this field, independent of his subdiscipline". People who are not biochemists are not well aware of major problems in biochem. They may not be aware of the protein folding question. Similarly people who are not physical chemists may not be aware of the relativistic problems with element 137. People not in the nano field may not be aware of its big problems. Unlike physics, chemistry is a field where you need to actually "know" and memorize a lot of material. Additionally each subfield requires quite different skills. Physical chemists are quite different from everyone else in the field for instance. Biochemists have to have memorized a lot and also conduct their research quite differently. The same kind of thing applies to organic, inorganic, anylatcal, nano, environmental and polymer chemistry. Physics in this regard is different in that the fundamental qualities of each sub discipline are quite conceptually similar. Everything is built directly on mathematics. Of course they use different equations, but their approach is very similar. Their is also much less to memorize. However people should not think that just because other chemists do not know about a physical chem question, it is trivial. That may not be the case at all. The problem would still need to be something that is major jump. Indeed when people in one field solve a major problem in their area it can be of great use to other areas of chemistry.


 * Let me be clear. I am not saying that incremental advances should be included. However I think that it should it is possible to show that something is conceptually a big deal and show examples in the literature of people discussing the problem. A possible way (but not the only way) to know if a problem is a big deal is to ask "what are the consequences if the problem is solved". For example the biggest problem with fuel cells is that they require platinum. There simply is not enough platinum on earth to provide even a significant fraction of all automobiles with it. People have been working on alternative catalysts for years now. If someone solves this problem we really could go ahead and use fuel cells on a mass scale. Let me also say that this is an area where 'appealing to authority' alone is concerning. Any argument made for why something is a big advance should come with a conceptual explanation as well as with articles in the literature explaining the problem. Consensus would need to be achieved that this was a major problem in the field. But people would need to be convinced at a conceptual level as well. eg People need to be able to understand why its so important to solve the protein folding problem. Again I suggest that chemists or those with a strong background in current chemistry be involved with this. It is difficult to define what exactly is a big problem in chemistry - it is not 100% precise. But, just because its hard should not prevent us from making as high-quality attempt as possible. I see no evidence that trivial problems have been posted on the article in the recent past and have stayed their for a long time. The article seemed to have worked quite well in practice. Of course it could do with further improvement. Heliumballoon 14:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep as per the previous deletion debates on these series of articles. No new reasons for deletion have been added. -Interested2 23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as per heliumballoon. No question for me, this is interesting and relevant encyclopedic information and belongs here. Point well made. Agree with Barsportsunlimited about ad hominem comments - way to encourage new users. Scriblio 23:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC) — Scriblio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Once more a user that has been around for only about two weeks with 7 edits total (1 single minor edit to mainspace) who directly jumped into deletion discussions. Just wondering.... Cacycle 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment ...Wondering what? You know what I'm wondering? I'm wondering why I should not have an opinion on AfDs purely because I have only recently begun to add to / edit wikipedia... But whatever, for an admin who claims 10k+ edits to use ad hom handbags and innuendo against any new users that disagree with them is a certain way to stifle authentic discussion. Just quietly, it is also suggestive of someone with their own personal pov-axe to grind and subtly undermines any other contribution you make.--Scriblio 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as I see it, the proper definition is the series is that this series of articles is about the areas which are currently the subject of research by scientists in the field and to use the Wikipedian phrase are "notable" areas of research. This is a practical reference for people interested in pursuing a career in science to see what the current live issues in the field are and if those are issues of interest to those persons.  The editing process also allows Wikipedia to exclude settled issues in a more timely fashion than a print source could, making this a good forum for it. In particular: Ohwilleke 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The resulting lack of criteria for inclusion has resulted in
 * - minor chemical topics (certainly O.K. to delete for lack of notability in a clear case);
 * - vague questions (not fatal if it captures the essence of the issue, the solution is tighter wording)
 * - non-chemistry topics (thus, move to the proper unsolved problem category)
 * - already or partly solved problems (already solved problems should obviously be deleted, but almost all problems are partly solve, this is no reason to complain about inclusion)
 * - pseudoscientific problems (Wikipedia should be accurate so removing these makes sense),
 * I agree that this must not be allowed in the article. I suggest that by restricting sources to scientific ones we will be ok. Eg - peer reviewed journals, science magazines, textbooks, websites of researchers, etc. Heliumballoon 11:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * - problems that could never be solved by scientific methods (how often is that really true? also, some insoluable problems never the less attract lots of serious research interest because even getting close to an ultimately insoluable problem is interesting -- for example, a list of all chemicals existing in nature is inherently impossible since we can't search it all, but never the less, getting close can be very worthwhille) Ohwilleke 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Weakish delete This article is certainly better than the corresponding article for biology, but I think the same logic should apply - *Delete Almost all problems in chemisty are partly solved, some to greater or lesser degrees. Whether something is unsolved enough to belong on this list is inherently POV. ike9898 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As noted repeatedly, the "...in mathematics" and "...in physics" articles have logically-definable criteria on which to base such a entry; chemistry doesn't. (Not to mention the difficulty of writing such an entry with proper references and without POV problems). -- MarcoTolo 01:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Ohwilleke. Ezratrumpet 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep Zginder 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC) UIf this gets deleted then the physics one must be too. Just because you didn't major in Chemistry doesn't mean the article should be deleted.
 * You would be surprised to learn that most users who would like to see this article deleted are actually scientists and heavy contributors to chemistry articles on Wikipedia. Please read the nomination and the discussion above to see why many think that chemistry is different from physics. Cacycle 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I was asked to give my comments, but I don't want to vote either way. I'm by nature a strong inclusionist, but I am a little uncomfortable with this article.  As has been pointed out, the list is too open-ended and subjective, though if the list is simply a distillation of the key literature on the topic (which it seems to be) then that makes me much happier.  Does it belong in an encyclopedia? I'm not sure.  On balance I don't think I could vote either way. Walkerma 06:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Commment No opinion on deletion/inclusion, but this article as it stands has serious fundamental flaws from a Wikipedia article standpoint, namely what criteria is determining that a particular problem should be listed here and where are the reliable sources establishing that these are "persistent questions with deep implications"? I've tagged the article and if it is indeed kept these problems need to be addressed.--Isotope23 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I don't see any changes since the previous deletion debate, where the consensus was to keep. I hope this is not one of those articles that people nominate 16 times just to see if they get lucky. --Itub 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Commment What would be your criteria for adding content to this page. Cacycle 20:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article may not be perfect now, but its existence is justifiable. It could be improved by adding references that show why a problem is considered an important unsolved problem and by whom. Heliumballoon gave some possible examples above. I also remember seeing books about "the future of chemistry" that could be useful for this purpose. --Itub 21:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I nominated this after seeing the biology version; simply because this is is second nomination doesn't mean that I have a personal crusade against it. However, I do think that it is false, worthless and misleading: I hope that those editors who wish to keep it will improve it to the high intellectual caliber of their other Wikipedia contributions. Physchim62 (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just started the long process of finding references and of cleaning up the page. Heliumballoon 17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just in case that this list article survives this deletion request, I suggest that we first try to to reach a consensus on its talk page on what belongs there. That will prevent frustration on both sides. Cacycle 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's more than a good suggestion — Wikipedia guidelines actually require lists to have specific criteria for inclusion. -- MarcoTolo 19:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even assuming that the article is false, worthless, and misleading, that is not reason enough to delete it. The questions should be: is the topic notable and are there reliable sources about it? We can still disagree about that, of course, but I think that the topic is notable and sources exists as mentioned above.
 * Commment. The closely related page unsolved problems in biology has now been deleted as an "inherently subjective list", see Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination). Cacycle 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per point of view risks with the article's title and subject, and potential indiscriminate collection of information. Question is - who decides? Any particular controversies, based on the references provided, can be documented on independent pages. Orderinchaos 14:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Definite keep: I am not going to repeat myself, I did participate in the Articles_for_deletion/Unsolved_problems_in_medicine discussion (in it chemistry was included), voted to keep it, it was kept and that should be it. I do not see any reason why it should be nominated again. In any legal system a defendant can only be tried once. V8rik 17:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unsolved problems in medicine has now been deleted for essentially the same reasons that led to this nomination, see Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in medicine 2. Cacycle 20:44, 5 June 2007 (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.