Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultrapure Water Explained

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. Consensus is that this article constitutes original research, and so should not be merged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrapure Water Explained

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this looks like a personal essay full of original research finished with an advertisment for a journal. previous versions suggests to me my opinion is true: "NOTICE: This article is written by the author listed at the end. The author is associated with the publisher of References 1 through 6, who grants copyright permission. The References used with this text are to provide background information and to validate the statements made in the text by the author." previously prod saying "The article is not encyclopedic, reads more like a review or research paper. Article is not wikilinked, is orphaned, referenced incorrectly, denotes ownership, not linked to any existing categories. No edits have been made to improve this article to get it up to standards" was removed by creator. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this may not be a popular viewpoint, but there appears to be some good information here. Granted, the sources are thin and this particular article isn't up to standards (awkward title, "NOTICE" at the top, etc.), but having had a few brief conversations with the author, I believe it was written in good faith. The author of the article is, from what I gather, at least something of an expert in the field. I don't know if "ultrapure water" is important enough to have its own article (regardless of its writing quality) but would like to see some of this information included on a separate article-- say, Water Treatment. Thoughts? AlexHOUSE (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Seems to be promoting an online journal. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to prevent recreation. Original research has no place here, nor do we care for "copyright permission" granted text, unless it is the CC_by_SA kind we all automatically give by writing and editing articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, my initial PROD quoted above, opinion remains. - ηyχ αμς 16:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per everyone else. ^Pepper∙_piggle 10:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Purified water as a section on the various types of purified water. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Water treatment or Purified water. No sense throwing out good information. AlexHOUSE (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2010 (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.