Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitchen chemistry

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 concensus-- Keep AdamBiswanger1 21:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Kitchen chemistry

Possibly original research. I'm listing this because it was speedy deleted as OR, but OR is not a speedy deletion criterion. The article is sourced, but I don't know if the source is considered reliable. No vote. gadfium 02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm the one who deleted this. I would vote to keep if it was cleaned up and made less of a how-to. - Lucky 6.9 02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as essentially a re-publication of the original list. I didn't look in detail but it's not clear to me that "with permission" means "under a GFDL-compatible license". It isn't really OR (acetone is commonly known as acetone? really?) but it's certainly unencyclopedic. Opabinia regalis 02:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or possible Transwiki (See below) Wikipedia is not a how-to. Don't see how this article (especially with its title) could be reformed into something that isn't a how-to and be encyclopedically notable (stripped down article would essentially be a reference to an external article) Bwithh 02:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks all, I'll abide by your judgement. Thought it would be a fun article for the home chemist, as it would be updatable (unlike the original article). Bryan Turner 02:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think its an useful and fun article as well - perhaps it can find a home on [Wikihow] (which is a great idea, though possibly even more of lawsuit magnet than wikipedia). I have no idea if this is a project we are allowed to transwiki to. If we can, I would recommend that. Bwithh 03:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • My guess is no, we can't transwiki as it has a Creative Commons license instead of a GFDL. ColourBurst 23:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Regarding license: I asked the author if I could publish the list from the article to Wikipedia, he consented and mentioned he was a frequent contributor. I take this to mean he understands the license, I can ask him to register and consent directly if necessary. Regarding content: It is a direct conversion of the online article (copy/paste) with wiki-formatting, links, and a few minor edits. I am willing to clean up/remove the how-to (better title suggestion?) if you feel it is worth keeping. (and yes, Acetone is the common name) :-) Bryan Turner 03:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• No Vote However, I think this is an absolutely fascinating and informative article and hope it can be preserved somewhere, even if it doesn't stay in article space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, I've read through the policies gadfium suggested; "No Original Research" - I agree this article constitutes original research, but in a cross-cutting manner. Each of the chemical pages already lists common sources, this article cross-references them (I plan to use transclusion from each of the parent articles into this one, so no duplication will occur). "Reliable Sources" - I also agree the Citizen Scientist is not a peer-reviewed source. I believe the transclusion idea would eliminate this issue, as the source would no longer depend on the original article, but fully reference Wikipedia intelectual property. Opinions? Bryan Turner 03:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• There's certainly stuff to write on the subject of performing chemistry using common household/kitchen chemicals, and on the subject of the science of cooking, as can be seen by what people have written on the two subjects. There are even whole books on the subjects (ISBN 0854043896, ISBN 0671675761, ISBN 0854043896, ISBN 0684800012, ISBN 0894909533, ISBN 1557995117, ISBN 0876146256). The latter subject is covered in food science and molecular gastronomy. The former subject is more difficult to address, as most of the sources are not actual discussions of the subject itself but are simply collections of experiments, akin to Wikijunior Big Book of Fun Science Experiments on Wikibooks.

  If Wikibooks had a book on home chemistry experiments, a list of common household sources for various chemicals, such as this, would be a suitable addition as an appendix. Uncle G 10:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite. While the topic is fine for Wikipedia, the current page is too much of a how-to. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 12:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As noted above, the phrase "kitchen chemistry" is well established and did not originate here; it roughly means "chemical experiments or demonstrations performed with household chemicals." It meets the "I'd heard of it before seeing the article" test. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

????? The what test? Bwithh 16:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I had heard the phrase "kitchen chemistry" used to refer to this subject before seeing a Wikipedia article about it. That's the test. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep- This article could easily be rewritten as an encyclopedic article, with a less 'how-to' tone. Dialectric
• KeepShades of Mr. Wizard! Brings back great memories to read about kitchen chemistry. But the rule that the chemicals are generally safe for high school students is questionable for some of the chemicals. And notes like "Be sure not to mix any X with Y" would be like telling a kid not to put beans up his nose. There should be some more safety notes about safe experimenting, and links to Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). Some solvents are carcinogins, for instance.Edison 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting enough content, may need some rewriting LHOON 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the fact that "chemical A can be extracted from household product B" is typically verifiable by the ingredient label. Other considerations, such as the most effective separation method (should we decide to go that route), would require more rigorous sourcing, otherwise they would be original research in the classical sense. — CharlotteWebb 20:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because the article is not about a subject, it's a how-to. Would be suitable for WikiBooks, perhaps transwiki? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Help Improve

If the decision ends up keep, please help me understand how to improve this article;

• Title - is 'Kitchen Chemistry' the appropriate title for the article that contains the chemical list, or should they be split into the coloquial term's definition and a separate list of chemicals?
• How-To - If the chemical sources are transcluded from the individual chemical pages, is this still too much of a 'how-to'? I guess.. where is the 'flavor' of the how-to coming from, and how can I remove it?
• Index/Appendix - Should this be something like an index instead of an article?

Thanks! Bryan Turner 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• SAFETY RULESIt is unwise to put chemicals in the hands of young experimenters without a section on lab safety. Some of these are indeed poisonous, explosive, carcinogenic, or capable of causing damage to the nervous system. Things like eye protection, don't add water to acid.Edison 19:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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.