Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy (chemistry)

Energy (chemistry)

Energy (chemistry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article was created without consensus by User:Hallenrm, who made a big mess by mincing the Energy article and turning it into a pseudo-disambiguation page. As discussion at Talk:Energy and Talk:Energy/Archive 4 shows, there is overwhelming consensus that these changes were unnecessary and that there is no need for an article called Energy (chemistry). When the Energy article was reconstructed, Energy (chemistry) was turned into a redirect towards Energy, but after further consideration I think that this is not an appropriate redirect for two reasons: 1) the Energy article has a much wider scope; 2) Energy (chemistry) is not a plausible link target or search string. Therefore we should Delete Energy (chemistry). -- Itub 07:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason, I'm also nominating:

• Energy (biology)
• Energy (cosmology)
• Energy (earth science)

These have all prod'ed, but the prod was reverted by Hallenrm with no explanation. --Itub 08:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This article has useful material, and it would not necessarily benefit the length of the main Energy article to reintroduce it there by merging. Hallernm created these spinoff articles, let's give him a chance to improve them and source them appropriately before making a decision to destroy them, potentially orphaning a number of useful images. Robert K S 12:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • PS, is it okay to put multiple articles under one AfD, or do they each need their own? Robert K S 12:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. I decided to list them together because they all came from the same messy split of the Energy article. --Itub 13:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I've seen the chemistry page. There is nothing there which does not belong in electromagnetic spectrum or thermodynamics. Since we are talking about the literal (and not figurative form of) "energy", it is one and the same throughout all the physical sciences, even though some may talk of it in electron-volts and others talk about it in joules, calories, and wavenumbers. There is the added problem of WP:FORKing if we keep such separate pages. --Rifleman 82 15:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No comments While it can be argued that: there is overwhelming consensus that these changes were unnecessary and that there is no need for an article called Energy (chemistry), the content of the pages are not totally useless to deserve deletion, perhaps they can be assimiliated with other articles. After all, the same content survived in the Energy article for more than six months59.180.234.124 17:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep as much as the nominator may think that creating this is disruptive, deleting it is also disruptive. At least, the content needs to be merged back in to Energy or elsewhere. But the energy article is already quite long, and it may be useful to split off some sub-topics. Also with a term as generic as "energy", which is used in different context in different fields, having an article that focuses on a particular area, where terminology can be used consistently and in context, is often preferable. Sometimes a one-size-fits-all article does not fit at all. At bottom, this is a content and editing dispute, and does not belong on AfD--there are other dispute resolution methods available that should be used first. Dhaluza 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)