Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermite synthesis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:36, 1 November 2004

Thermite synthesis

All encyclopedic information on thermite compounds and thermite reactions is already covered at Thermite. Although very thorough and somewhat well-written, Thermite synthesis is merely an attempt to disseminate "Anarchist-cookbook"-style subversive information. Page describes process for creating a material, the possession of which is of questionable legality in most locales. Any WP entry with strict warnings/disclaimers needs to be carefully scrutinized, and this does not stand up. --Huge colin 18:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Transwiki the HOWTO parts to wikibooks. Keep some form of an article. --Improv 19:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with Improv. —siro χ o 04:14, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Also agree with Improv. --Nought 17:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Unsure. Borderline IMO, probably the same status as a recipe. So agree, maybe offer to Wikibooks? Possibly a copyvio of the broken external link. I'm happy to keep or delete; No, actually I'm unhappy to delete, because it reeks of censorship, and equally unhappy to keep, because just the same I think we'd be better off without it. No vote at this stage. Andrewa 20:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment: The fact that the information is dangerous is not in itself a reason for deletion. (Seems to me that the government once tried to classify information that was in the Encyclopedia Americana on the grounds that it was relevant to building a nuclear weapon...) What bothers me is the question of verifiability. Is it verifiable, and how? I'm not going to cook up a batch of the stuff. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki to wikibooks. I think the best thing to do would be to set up a chemical synthesis book on wikibooks. Then make one these these interwiki boxes to put on articles about chemical compounds that would say somethink like "Wikibooks chemical synthesis has a section about:"Passw0rd 13:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Disagree with deletion. Agree with transwiki to a chemsynth section if that means crossreferencing article into section with specialized knowledge. The article is informative but offtopic for the article on thermite itself, and therefore appropriate to stand by itself. Plus, we shouldn't think that squirreling away useful knowledge to protect us from ourselves in any way resembles self-governance. --Anonymous16:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 *'''Transwiki the HOWTO parts''' to wikibooks. '''Keep''' some form of an article. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 19:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 **'''Agree''' with Improv. [[User:Siroxo| ]]&mdash;[[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>siro</font>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>''&chi;''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|<font color=#627562>o</font>]] 04:14, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
+** Also '''agree''' with Improv. --[[User:Nought|Nought]] 17:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 *Comment: Unsure. Borderline IMO, probably the same status as a recipe. So agree, maybe offer to [[Wikibooks]]? Possibly a copyvio of the broken external link. I'm happy to keep or delete; No, actually I'm unhappy to delete, because it reeks of censorship, and equally unhappy to keep, because just the same I think we'd be better off without it. No vote at this stage. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 20:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 *Comment: The fact that the information is dangerous is not in itself a reason for deletion. (Seems to me that the government once tried to classify information that was in the Encyclopedia Americana on the grounds that it was relevant to building a nuclear weapon...) What bothers me is the question of verifiability. Is it verifiable, and how? '''I'm''' not going to cook up a batch of the stuff. [[User:Dpbsmith|[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]]]] 02:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)