Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summary of Unconfined Vapour Cloud Explosions

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. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Unconfined Vapour Cloud Explosions[edit]

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

Article was prodded by Blanchardb (talk · contribs) but the article creator, Michael Nettleton (talk · contribs), left a note on the talk page, indicating that deletion is not uncontroversial. Original prod rationale was "Reads like a research paper"

For my part, I agree with the nomination and rationale for deletion. Additionally, the original author's talk page comment tells me that this is all WP:OR; therefore, my position is delete. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hopefully the original author is following this AfD, in which case, I recommend they actually do go and read the Wikipedia guidelines regarding "Original Research". It's not that the entry is worthless information, it's just not appropriate as an encyclopedia article. -Quartermaster (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the article actually was about "Unconfined Vapour Cloud Explosions" and explained what they are in a concise, encyclopedic manner, I would have less of a problem. As it stands, it's a review of the research ABOUT the topic that appears to me more of a listing of all sorts of research around the topic. Using the sources cited to buttress an encyclopedic article could work. Otherwise, simply jumping all over and citing the research from the citations, that is original research. The topic itself doesn't seem to ever be defined or directly addressed. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. The creator's talk page comment makes his contribution a secondary source, meaning that it could be used as a basis for an article on Wikipedia as long as it is published outside Wikipedia first, then deemed reliable and authoritative. But it cannot be published in Wikipedia as is, given that it is not a tertiary source about the topic. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge I'm no expert and it's hard to read, but it looks like he's talking about BLEVE. Perhaps some of the information and references here could be merged into that page on the condition that it is rewritten and properly formatted. Smocking (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we were to merge, BLEVE and Thermobaric weapon might be good targets - Thermobaric weapon is where Vapor cloud explosion redirects. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Smocking and Ultraexactzz. Bad original research can still be a place to find and add references or a bibliography. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 27 February 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.