Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple Oxidation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete, mainly due to notability reasons. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apple Oxidation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I removed the speedy tag on this article and have attempted some cleanup. Upon reading (and rereading), I've come to the conclusion that this article is most likely a school project, almost like a topical report. The creator is a s.p.a and has made no other contributions. The article's subject matter is already well covered at Apple, Browning (chemical process), and Oxidation. Although there are references, this reads more like WP:OR. I say delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as possible school project. Nonetheless, it's an essay full of original research, and is covered more thoroughly at other pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- as original research. AndreNatas (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - original research, seems to be a personal essay or a school project. Doc StrangeMailbox Orbitting Black HoleStrange Frequencies 17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. This article could easily be re-written to Wikipedia standards. The basic thesis is definitley not original research. No doubt it originated as a science fair project. But it is a real agriculture topic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no doubt it is a real subject. I didn't say it was fake. I am asserting that the subject is already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, and has been for many months/years prior to this essay. Did you read the links I provided in my nom statement and compare them to this article, Wassupwestcoast? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but your links don't specifically deal with 'Apple oxidation'. Wikipedia does allow for such specific articles. And, it is possible to make this article FA. It doesn't suffer from notability problems. It is just badly written. The Editing policy states simply that editors should work on improving pages, without regarding perfection, because it can be fixed later. It is not a reason to delete an article. Actually, what policy are you basing the deletion request on? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OR. WP:N. Also, please read WP:SUP. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are reasons for re-writing the article: not deleting it. The topic is not original research. It is super easy to find journal references. See: "Oxidation in apple juice. III. - Oxidation turbidities". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740020803.. Some Wikipedian with a couple of hours could re-write this to FA status. Remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is room for this article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll state again, I didn't say this wasn't a legitimate topic, just not a legitimate article. I'm not disputing that apples turn brown (and for a scientific reason, no less!) as you seem to be implying. I'm saying it's already covered in the links provided above. Simply that. I've noticed that you are improving the article, which is good. I'll be more than happy to withdraw my nom if you (or any editor) can show me how apples turning brown is significant/notable enough to have it's own article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow you. 'Apple oxidation' is notable by any definition. Scientific journal articles deal with the topic specifically. Books are written about it, specifically. Compare this to the dozens of articles on specific episodes of The Simpsons that have reached GA or FA status, and your argument falls apart. If The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson can be FA on Wikipedia, then there is room for Apple Oxidation. If The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson cannot be deleted, then there is room for an article about apples turning brown. By the way, in university, apple physiology, storage and oxidation was one of the topics covered in an apple course. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do apples turn brown (oxidize) in a significantly different way then any other fruit, or are they (apples) simply the fruit of choice? Oxidation is notable. Apples are notable. Apples turning brown are not. Bringing up the Simpsons doesn't seem relevant. If we are getting waxy, then there should probably be an article titled Pear oxidation, as well as Grape oxidation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apples and pears are similar - both are in the same sub-family as is medlar and quince. Grape is different. I smile when you don't see the relevance of individual articles of a TV program getting the 'Wikipedia stamp of approval' in comparison to 'apple oxidation'. It would be easier to get funding to do 'apple oxidaton' research than to do the same thing over an individual episode of The Simpsons! Only on Wikipedia, does such weirdness reign. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do apples turn brown (oxidize) in a significantly different way then any other fruit, or are they (apples) simply the fruit of choice? Oxidation is notable. Apples are notable. Apples turning brown are not. Bringing up the Simpsons doesn't seem relevant. If we are getting waxy, then there should probably be an article titled Pear oxidation, as well as Grape oxidation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow you. 'Apple oxidation' is notable by any definition. Scientific journal articles deal with the topic specifically. Books are written about it, specifically. Compare this to the dozens of articles on specific episodes of The Simpsons that have reached GA or FA status, and your argument falls apart. If The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson can be FA on Wikipedia, then there is room for Apple Oxidation. If The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson cannot be deleted, then there is room for an article about apples turning brown. By the way, in university, apple physiology, storage and oxidation was one of the topics covered in an apple course. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll state again, I didn't say this wasn't a legitimate topic, just not a legitimate article. I'm not disputing that apples turn brown (and for a scientific reason, no less!) as you seem to be implying. I'm saying it's already covered in the links provided above. Simply that. I've noticed that you are improving the article, which is good. I'll be more than happy to withdraw my nom if you (or any editor) can show me how apples turning brown is significant/notable enough to have it's own article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are reasons for re-writing the article: not deleting it. The topic is not original research. It is super easy to find journal references. See: "Oxidation in apple juice. III. - Oxidation turbidities". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740020803.. Some Wikipedian with a couple of hours could re-write this to FA status. Remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is room for this article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OR. WP:N. Also, please read WP:SUP. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but your links don't specifically deal with 'Apple oxidation'. Wikipedia does allow for such specific articles. And, it is possible to make this article FA. It doesn't suffer from notability problems. It is just badly written. The Editing policy states simply that editors should work on improving pages, without regarding perfection, because it can be fixed later. It is not a reason to delete an article. Actually, what policy are you basing the deletion request on? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and merge any salvageable content into Browning (chemical process). Tim Vickers (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Browning (chemical process) and/or Apple. Far too specific a topic, should be a subheading of one the two previous articles. You wouldn't write a separate article about peeling an orange or how pears get ripe, now would you? This should have been added to Apple or Browning in the first place. VanTucky 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/delete/redirect/whatever. I don't have anything against articles about highly specialized topics. I think this topic is notable enough so that an expert (or at least someone with copious amounts of spare time and a good understanding of basic science) could write a good article about it. However, I see nothing salvageable in the current version of the article, and being so specialized it seems unlikely that it will improve anytime soon. It is so filled with inaccuracies and confused writing that I think the best solution is to turn it into a redirect for now. However, if someone writes something better in the future I won't object. --Itub (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.220.56 (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as trivial essay. There may be a home forthis somewhere, but not on WP. Ref 1 is "Science Fair Projects", which is where this belongs, not in an encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.