This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (pending). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plant hormone theory I and Plant hormone theory II[edit]

While plant hormone and the way that the control plant development and respond to stress is perfectly acceptable material for Wikipedia, these articles are not the way to do it. First of all they're essays and may include original research, I hypothesize pops up frequently in the text. Second, the way it is written both simplifies and complicates the issue at the same time, so anyone that read it and is not a plant biochemist (and even then...) is going to come out confused. Third, nothing is cited (which is why I'm not just merging the articles), this knowledge doesn't just exist it has come from years of research, this brings up two problems, people aren't being credited for their work, and everything in these massive articles would need to be fact checked and referenced, since it has been written to meet the authors hypothesis, literature has also been left out. So weighing all that up I am recommending that these be deleted

I should also mention that these have been used with permission from a website [1]. --nixie 03:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Comments on the website lead me to believe that these fall into the realm of original research. Joyous 03:26, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research, especially when they don't cite anything. Mgm|^(talk) 08:32, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The references for the articles are at Talk:Plant_hormone - Fuelbottle | Talk 18:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • An essay like that really needs in text referencing, are you prepared to do that?--nixie 23:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like this topic and 95% of the content, but the articles need to be overhauled and made "encyclopedic". To preserve them, remove speculation and any first person observations. Remove author's research unless truly widely recognized as field-advancing. Add links and references. Then it could be better than any of our endless cruft on tv and video game characters. alteripse 03:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Topic may be encyclopedic but the current content is not (yet). Unfortunately the general plant hormone article, though shorter, is in a similar sorry state. It's the one, though, that should stay since it has the potential for meaningful cleanup. These two should go. Tobycat 01:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with Tobycat's comments. CheekyMonkey 22:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with alteripse. This seems to be more of a research paper than an encyclopedia article. --Kerowyn 03:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Since there is already a much more concise Plant_hormone page, I'm inclined to agree with Tobycat. --Alan Au 05:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.