Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human equivalent

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 no consensus. One two three... 03:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human equivalent

Delete Doubtful notability, lack of good references. DThomsen8 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And most decidedly. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and maybe this Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Sustainability talk page had an issue recently with this also. User User:Granitethighs created the article Human equivalent and it looks as pretty much a product placement for the book he published... which he authored about the same time his editing activity started on Wikipedia *Cross, R. & Spencer, R.D. 2009. "Sustainable Gardens". CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. ISBN 978-0-643-09422-2. Here is a google hit for this article now http://www.google.com/search?q=%27%27Cross%2C+R.+%26+Spencer%2C+R.D.+(2009).+Sustainable+Gardens.+Collingwood%2C+Australia%3A+CSIRO+Publishing&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS314US314 so it looks like an attempt at getting a high value connector- This other article was originated also by GraniteThigh again seemingly as a vehicle of promotion on Wikipedia possibly also - Here is the discussion there Talk:Sustainable gardening and there may be other articles also. skip sievert (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any CSIRO publication is a reliable source. And there is no rule against using your own publication as a reference so long as it qualifies as a reliable source. To suggest that a mention on Wikipedia as a reference is somehow "product placement" is ridiculous. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CSIRO publication cited may well be an entirely reliable source. What I do not know is how a definition of "human equivalent" happens to be defined in a book about sustainability gardening. Perhaps it is defined there, and the term "human equivalent" is a useful and respected term within the scientific community. If that is the case, there should be other reliable sources, whether on the Internet or in paper materials like books and magazines. These sources should be cited, otherwise deletion is the appropriate action. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer here is in the word "sustainability". However what worries me here is the lack of an assumption of good faith. On the one hand we have an established editor who writes an article defining a technical term, and uses a book he apparently wrote, published by a highly reputable scientific organisation, as a source. On the other hand we have several editors who express ignorance of the concept, but use that ignorance as the primary reason for deletion. In fact I cannot see where anybody has nominated a valid reason for deletion. Further as I show below, the origin of the nomination flows from a conflict between editors on another article. IMHO a far more reasonable action would have been to tag the article asking for further sources, rather than this premature, and apparently vexatious, nomination. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The text of this article appears to be a copied excerpt of another article. See Energy > Section: Energy in various contexts since the beginning of the universe second paragraph. In its current version, this article does not meet Wikipedia article requirements. This article lacks the basic elements of a Wikipedia article and there doesn't seem to be any editors interested in expanding it. --Yourdailywiki (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would request the closing admin consider this and this. It appears this deletion nomination came out of a long standing dispute here. --Michael Johnson (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that this deletion request in uncontroversial. Inviting editors to review and comment is within the guidleines. My research leads me to believe that the creator of the article has agreed to the deletion? If not may we hear from the editors of this article! My own observation and comments on the article are from a neutral point of view based solely on the merits of the article irrespective of any personal disputes. I would encourage all editors to do the same and consider the article and the deletion request objectively without emotion or personal bias. --Yourdailywiki (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google searches on the term "Human equivalent" result in a great many entries about Human equivalent drug doses, and not to this term as an energy unit. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Based on a reliable (if not electronically accessible) source. But the article should be broadened to include the concept of "human equivalent" in other contexts, such as HED (human equivalent drug dose). SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is the point though of taking a non notable phrase and trying to make that into an article? As said above the text of this article appears to be a copied excerpt of another article with some non connected sourcing. See Energy > Section: Energy in various contexts since the beginning of the universe second paragraph. skip sievert (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2009 (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.