Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tempo 20 wp

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 and redirect. There doesn't appear to be any salvageable content. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo 20 wp[edit]

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

The article is an unsalvageable mess of POV, irrelevant information and WP:SYN from a single (blocked) user. Kolbasz (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I complained about the awfulness of this article quite some time ago at WikiProject Chemicals, and nothing has changed. In principle we could have an article about it (it's an insecticide), but if nobody is going to clean it up, deleting it is the best option. Looie496 (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Unsalvageable mess" and "awfulness" don't go far enough. This article is basically a fraud. Almost the entire content of the article has nothing to do with the subject. Someone found a bunch of "references" related to potential health effects of some insecticides and extrapolated that into saying that this one insecticide causes all those effects and then began extrapolating further into pure fiction from there. There is no connection between the references and Tempo 20 wp. This is all POV-driven guilt-by-association style WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I don't know if it is intentionally deceptive or just the natural consequence of simple-minded editing from an extremely biased point of view, but it is unfortunate that Wikipedia has been spreading this article's misinformation for years. ChemNerd (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nom is clearly an example of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, as are the two previous votes. Subject matter is obviously both real and clearly notable given the already existing and extensive list of refs, as well as the (literally) millions that Google turns up. If it's so obviously bad, just fix it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion does not fall into any category where Wikipedia:Speedy keep could apply. ChemNerd (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever can be saved, if anything, in Cyfluthrin. They are the same substance (cfr. [1], [2] ); Tempo 20 WP is just a commercial name, apparently. And then redirect. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fringe POV pushing, OR and Synth. Also, content and POV fork. An valid article already exists on the pesticide. Nothing here is worth salvaging or merging, and not even sure a redirect would be appropriate without reliable sourcing that the product name is noteworthy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the couple of academic papers above use the commercial name indeed, so a redirect seems meaningful. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:56, 16 June 2013 (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.