Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shower science
- 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 Closing early as delete. Article falls into CSD G1. Shadow1 (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shower science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
A rather waffly article about an alleged new scientific discipline. There may be scope for an article about the hybrid shower providing that the article actually explains how the thing works. But I have a strong suspicion that this is merely spam for the linked-to company. -- RHaworth 11:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
==please ensure you don't basterdise the web link which is why it was promptly removed by "showerscience" after seeing what occurs here with startling regularity. We didn't think that their site would receive such a hammering.
Perhaps this "select" type of membership might basterdise energysavingshower.com which is ours at least instead.
Leave the poor buggers at frost alone. Clearly we are putting ourselves to blame for bringing out the worst of the members.
Unfortunately providing the good end of the stick to others leaves one with the bad end.
We wont be as embarrassed on another occasion an learn to expect this type of low level constructive critiscism. ==User: showerscience--203.87.50.39 07:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as pure spam. Anything there is to say on "shower science" is said better on fluid dynamics. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is also almost certainly a WP:COI, given that "Mike" above is posting from an Australian IP and the subject of the article is "Michael Collalto of Australia" - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are some good ideas here for minimizing energy use in showering: avoid excess airflow into the shower, and line the shower with low conductivity material instead of tile. This could be incorporated in articles on energy conservation. A fiberglass shower stall with a door which seals somewhat, or a plastic shower curtain inside the tub with a cloth shower curtain outside would achieve some of the benefits. But the article is promoting to a "science" an article in a website about how, if the shower stall is sealed and insulated, you don't need to heat the bathroom. This does not address how unbearable it would be in the summer in a hot climate, or how cold the user would be when he opened the door and stepped out into the cold bathroom at 50 degrees F or lower per the website, or basic notions of humans needing air to breathe. It claims there is not condensation on the window, but ignores the humidity rise in the bathroom when the sealed enclosure is opened. No evidence that the 'science' is anywhere accepted as such. Edison 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Showerscience, please scroll down the list of AFDs for a second. Do you see any other discussions with headings? (equal signs before and after the title like this: ==== In the summer ====). If you have a reply, do so in under the comment you're replying to. Please follow the format listed at WP:AFD. While you're there, take a look at the etiquette section. Attacking people is not going to save the article or bring any people over to your side. Edison raised some valid points without attacking you or your ideas. It would be courteous and civil for you to reply in the same manner. Not everyone will agree with you. However, this is a discussion and there is nothing wrong with asking questions. --Cyrus Andiron 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, speedy preferred. To lessen embarrassment for all involved. --Pjacobi 17:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Pure spam, with any doubt removed by the postings by the article's creator embedded in the AfD. (I also recommend the removal of said postings after this AfD is complete.) --EMS | Talk 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is not only nonsensical and very, very short on any facts, the way that User:Showerscience describes this more resembles a school science project. This isn't anything new and innovative - it's steam heat in an inefficient output mechanism, BFD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - total gibberish. I actually have no idea what this article is about, or what the author is talking about here. AFAIK, it's the bastard child of garage invention and a school science project - neither of which are even remotely notable. --Haemo 23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - tagged the article as {{db-nonsense}}, let's see if a speedy happens given this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger. What can we say..........showerscience here. Next time we will put far more into the predigestion process for any who have a bad digestive system. At this time what can we say other than we are sorry that it has brought out the worst in this lot. With this sort of membership dominating, it reminds us of a forum once used to burn witches or a soccer match with many hoons.
We are not as embarrassed at this time for the content in the light of this type of thoughtless "press the delete button game show" mentality, so clearly represented by the bunch so far. (A lot of projection here.). Not much to be embarrassed about for shower science if this is all a forum like this has to offer.Showerscience.203.87.50.39 05:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:27, 19 April 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.