Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SNDRI

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: for the articles Phenyltropane, SNDRI, Nocaine, Phenidate and Peridine, KEEP the articles as very short stubs but DELETE their contents from article space, but USERFY to save the material for the author's use. The history of these stubified articles still holds the old material, which might be of some use to some future author. I am a little over my head content-wise in these articles, so to stubify them I basically cut them down to the first sentence or two.

The articles Ohmefentanyl and Indatraline are already pretty short so I left those alone. Herostratus 17:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SNDRI

As original research and possible copyvio. Nuklear is posting research papers as articles. I also include Indatraline in this nomination for the same reasons. DarkAudit 13:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how using reference material is copyright fraud? How is this original research? When someone has over 80 references to back up their claims its a bit rich calling it either plagurism / original research. Besides fentanyl and cocaine are difficult to procure, so there is a need for new research to fuel the needs of the economy.

I never said it was plagiarism. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is a research paper. Research papers do not belong on Wikipedia. DarkAudit 14:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an overview/summary of SNDRI compounds. It doesnt present any 'synthesized' conjecture. It is just a conglomeration of work already published in existing scientific literature. If this doesnt belong on wikipedia please could you point me in the direction of where it does belong and i will move it there.

Delete This is not an encyclopedia article, merely a collection of talking points regarding depression and its treatment. While highly-referenced, the article makes no attempt to explain what SNDRI is, how it is synthesized and administered and why it is important. Article reads like an abstract to a academic thesis. Caknuck 16:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, before I go out and kill anybody like an MI6 employed assasin, I had to delete alot of the 'filler' and break it down into cross-sections because the article was losing its structure and just becoming a bunch of collective waffle. It's not like I can just finish an article in one day though. These things take time and effort to do properly.

Userfy If you look at the history, it's clear that LOTS of work has been put into this article already (although I don't quite understand the methods being used to build this article or the motivation for doing so in such a fashion). Move it to Nuklear's userspace for now and if it does ever take on the form of an encyclopedia article, the article can be recreated. By the way, Nuklear, please sign your posts by adding four tildes after your comment or clicking "Sign your username" below. Propaniac 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the article further, it looks even less likely that it's headed in a direction to be an acceptable Wikipedia article, but it's still a lot of effort that might as well be saved somewhere. Propaniac 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy the whole lot of them (OMF, PT, Nocaine, Phenidate, Indatraline; SNDRI). They are all written and presented like journal articles, which goes against WP:NOT. I agree with Propaniac that they should be saved since they represent a lot of work. The articles themselves could probably be stripped down a great deal into ok stubs for expansion, but as is they are not encyclopedic in the slightest. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you dont like it, I dont see why you cant just ignore it instead of trying to undermine it. Do you have any idea how offensive it is being told all your work is retarded and that it should be deleted?--Nuklear 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was never the case. The problem is that this is the wrong place for this work. Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed journal, and that is the proper forum for these articles, not here. DarkAudit 22:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case i'll just have to make a few telephone calls to respected journal publishers if im getting that advanced. I didnt know I was that clever. In the mean time, is there anywhere I can buy a webdomain that will allow me to use similar code to wikipedia to prepare my articles? believe me, I want and have my own website (www.hochemicals.co.uk) but it wont allow me to use html code etc, and the border width takes up half tha page. Thanks for your helpful input. --Nuklear 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuklears articles (including phenidate, peridine, nocaine, phenyltropane, ohmefentanyl, and 2Design) are not original research, nor are they copyvios. They are essentially scientific review articles in the areas of pharmacology and medicinal chemistry that summarize published experimental data. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source that summarizes from such secondary literature. In their current form these articles are not really suited for Wikipedia and need heavy editing to become encyclopedic articles. However, these articles are legitimate articles and topics and can be wikified, so I see no reason to delete them. Cacycle 00:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how large copy and paste edits from research articles are not copyvios. Are research articles not protected?? Are they fair use? --User:I already forgot using Alpha beta 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I could gather from a quick check of copyright guidelines: "you hold the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself" could mean that he could post it here under the terms of the GFDL, unless the original location claims a different license. It could still be a copyvio from another site even though it's the author's work. If someone with deeper knowledge of the copyright guidelines could clarify this, please? DarkAudit 03:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganize Published articles are copyright, & can't be reproduced here, unless one wrote them and owns the copyright--but in general, the publisher unfortunately owns the copyright. Summarizing content of articles in one's own words--no matter who wrote them-- is not a copyright violation. Copying part of the abstracts of articles, and inserting them in an article of one's own --if that is what has been done here--is borderline fair use. I do not think that's what has been done, for they sound like notes on the articles, not transcripts-- and I see nothing that is likely to be a copyvio.

But this is a general encyclopedia, not a scientific review journal, nor a repository for even excellent student papers or class notes, and this article has elements of the three. The more general parts of this could possibly make a WP article; we already have articles on the general subject, but there might be room for this, if written in the right tone. The material on individual compounds , similarly, is appropriate on articles on the compounds, but again, made less academic.

If the author would like to work on the material, we have provision for it, and it can be copied onto a subpage of the user page--this is a frequent way of developing WP articles. I think that would be best. I've gone ahead, and copied this article onto User:Nuklear/sandbox; the other articles can be copied to that or similar pages. DGG 04:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posited on his talk page that an editor with better connections and resources than I may be able to help find these articles a more fitting home. DarkAudit 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite There is a lot of good research in Nuklear's articles, and all well referenced. The content is definitely suitable for Wikipedia, just the way they are written is not. I would certainly not recommend deleting them though, just reorganizing and putting any copied material into proper original wording. Meodipt 05:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify why I've mention the copyvio edits (cut from my talk page) ...

Section I deleted: [1] which had exactly the same text on the article at [2]

Similar copyvio edits removed here [3] that was copied from the article at [4]

And he recently creates an article with the same copyvio edits: [5] which is again a duplicate of the article at (under heading PHARMACOPHORE MODELING) [6]

If the user is a pharm genius, he makes it difficult to assume good faith when you find the bulk of an article to be copy and pasted and then see a string of edits like this...[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17]. I'm willing to assume good faith, but soon as you add nonsense and copy and pasted articles, it becomes difficult to keep assuming, especially when I can keep looking and find more of the same.-- I already forgot talk 06:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Encyclopedic topic, unencyclopedic article. I'm trying to assume the assumption of good faith, but the article as it stands violates WP:OR and WP:NOT and I feel this goes for most articles this user has contributed to. I would go for either keep and complete rewrite, otherwise delete. Paul079 18:19, 27 May 2007 (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.