Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human 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 Delete — Caknuck 20:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Human chemistry

Human chemistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This seems to be an attempt by User:Sadi Carnot to get publicity for a book and/or website. There are also other articles such as Interpersonal chemistry, Heat and affinity, and Human molecule, but I don't want to spam AFD with a ton of nominations. Ggreer 10:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems to be an attempt by User:Sadi Carnot to write an encylopedia article, and it looks like a very good effort as well. The author has cited a variety of sources, ranging back to the 1800s and up to today, and each paragraph is referenced. The article looks well researched, and the sourcing is very good, far better than the majority of articles. I see no evidence of any promotional stuff whatsoever in the article. Personally, I am skeptical of attempts to make analogies between human beings and atoms, they tend to be stretches of a theory to domains where they no longer hold, and I think this is more of a social science, rather than natural science article. Such concerns have no influence on the encylopedic validity of the subject in a general purpose encyclopedia however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While the articles are well-referenced, most of the references are to papers either unrelated or only tangentially related, similar to what is going on at Thermoeconomics. This user seems to be writing many articles about fringe theories related to thermodynamics. The book Human Chemistry and the websites humanchemistry.net and humanthermodynamics.com are linked to in serveral articles (Human chemistry, Interpersonal chemistry, Heat and affinity, Georgi Gladyshev, Chemical affinity, Entropy and life), mostly authored by User:Sadi Carnot. These websites and books were created by Libb Thims. This makes make me think this character is pushing his or her pet theory. Also, this talk of applying thermodynamics to sociology/psychology comes from a fictional story called Elective Affinities. Doesn't anyone else take a look at all of this and think it's fishy? The user may be well-intentioned but many of the claims in these articles range from dubious to nonsense. Ggreer 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice that the strongly-positive review of "Human Chemistry" at Amazon is also by this Libb Thims link. I think this is connected. Tim Vickers 05:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep- may be eligible for B now, and GA-class a llittle improved.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 13:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - Even if kept, this is not even close to B class. It is well-laid out and on the surface it looks impressive with all those sources, but the article is loaded with POV statements ("groundbreaking," "revolutionary," etc.) and other editors have called into question both the content and validity of the sources. I don't have the time right now to check on all those sources, so I'm not gonna propose keep or delete either way... but in any case, this only superficially looks like B-class, but it's nowhere close. --21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysweet (talk • contribs)

  I read it ovr, and change to neutral.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 03:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Sjak Mandsford 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjak. Note that Ggreer has no edits outside this afd.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Change my vote to delete. The delete people have presented a good case and Ggreer seems to be willing to "walk more softly" as seen in his talk page--Lenticel ^(talk) 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I had closed this as a non-admin closure, but due to concerns on my talk page I'm re-opening and relisting it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I believe there is notability for these concepts, but it may be better treated in one article than several that have unclear borderlines, and I suspect that article is interpersonal chemistry. I definitely think this article needs renaming at the least and rescoping at best outcome, because as is it seems to be about human biochemistry rather than a metaphor for interpersonal relations. There's something here, but how to organize it is the question. Right now there is an element of synthesis throughout that doesn't seem backed up by a comprehensive secondary source review of the material. --Dhartung | Talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep following much needed improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Review of sources shows that improvements are chimerical. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Good article, and definitely not a publicity stunt. The Wikipedist 05:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Note The above account made his first edit after this AfD was listed. sincere apologies - I was confused because the account was created on the same day as this AfD [1]. I should have been more careful. Sorry --TreeKittens 10:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has now been blocked for disruption. Tim Vickers 16:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete An excellent example of gaming the system. Enormous numbers of references, mainly citing things that don't have anything to do with the article, by people that would be revolted if they were told that their work was supporting such dreck, all leading up to a misleading cite of a National Geographic article that uses the same words to mean a completely different thing, making it appear that the theory has some modern credence. Delete. Salt. Block the author from further creation. Kww 10:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It might now be appropriate to put a book cover right at the top of the article, but that doesn't mean the whole article needs to go. It looks like there are several books on this topic so I don't see why you think the topic is inappropriate. --Zvika 11:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: I am changing my vote to delete. I am not a deletionist, but the evidence gathered in the later votes below does seem to support the appearance that this is a fringe theory. It appears that what I previously thought were reliable sources are actually misrepresented in the article and have no relation to the theory described here. I invite Sadi Carnot to point out a single peer-reviewed article which directly addresses and promotes the idea that inferences can be drawn from chemistry to human relations. Right now I see no such reference. --Zvika 19:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Good article. Colonel Warden 12:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I think we should pay serious attention to the concerns expressed by User:Kww and User:Ggreer. I am not voting yet, but I am concerned that much of this article is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Observe this paragraph, for example:

  In the groundbreaking fourth chapter, the characters detail the world’s first ever verbally-depicted human double displacement chemical reaction. The chapter begins with description of the affinity map (reaction map) or ‘topographical chart’ as Goethe calls it. On this reaction map, we are told that on it ‘the features of the estate and its surroundings were clearly depicted, on quite a large scale, in pen and in different colors, to which the Captain had give a firm basis by taking trigonometrical measurements’. This is equivalent, in modern times, to the use of trigonometric measurements of approach angles and topologies on free energy maps when modeling the encounter complex between two or more molecules on a receptor surface grid.

  Now this is referenced to a chapter on protein binding in a book called Drug-Receptor Thermodynamics. I have not read the source, and I am assuming good faith, but I find this highly suspicious. We need some expert help here. --TreeKittens 04:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —TreeKittens 04:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete - About half of this article is original research of the worst kind - semi-plausible twaddle with references that support a few of the facts, but none of the syntheses. The remainder of the article is true as it goes, but merely charts a few uses of an analogy, rather than describing a genuine field of study. This is junk. Tim Vickers 05:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of sources

1. "One of the first to state that humans react according to free energy principles was American computational chemist David Hwang, who in his 2001 article "The Thermodynamics of Love" argued that a theoretical chemical reaction exists where two elements, male (M) and female (F), combine to form a new compound called "couple" (M-F):" - reference is to a student magazine. This is by no possible stretch of the imagination a serious scientific publication.
2. "In 2006, the view that love is a purely chemical reaction was so prominent that National Geographic magazine published a full cover-story article on "Love the Chemical Reaction." In this article, it is argued that to create or drive the human chemical reaction of love a "cocktail of brain chemicals", e.g. dopamine, sparks romance, but that these are different than those, such as oxytocin, that foster long-term attachment." - Article is not about regarding people as molecules, it deals with brain chemistry and neurobiology. This citation is highly misleading.

• Comment. User:Sadi Carnot, the primary editor of this article claims via this link on his user page to be Libb Thims, the author of Human Chemistry which is cited as a reference in this article and others. There is also a prominent picture of this book at the top of the page. My concerns deepen, especially given Tim Vickers' analysis above. WP:COI is not grounds for deletion in my opinion, but I think we need to hear from him to see if he can help to clarify matters. I have informed him of this debate. Thanks --TreeKittens 06:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be shown that this is not a violation of WP:NOR - particularly WP:SYNTH. There seems to be no serious third-party analysis of this concept cited in the article now that the book Human Chemistry can no longer be regarded as independent. I was being overly cautious - many of the citations are misleading and I question the encyclopaedic intention of this article. Nevertheless, User:Sadi Carnot is obviously an intelligent guy, who may have many useful contributions to make to Wikipedia. --TreeKittens 07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for phrasing the arguments in a way that made people listen. I do think, however, that you are being awfully kind to User:Sadi Carnot. Once a user has perpetrated such a massive intertwined piece of fraud, how can you trust any of his other contributions? All of the related articles to this one need to be deleted as well, and User:Sadi Carnot should be blocked indefinitely.Kww 12:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur. This article is out-and-out fraud. I do not feel comfortable with the idea of Sadi Carnot continuing to contribute to Wikipedia - how can we trust him after this? — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per TimVickers, as much as I like Sadi Carnot and his many excellent contributions to Wikipedia in the area of thermodynamics. This article and its siblings are great research, but it is still original research. They are advancing a thesis (that "humans behave like molecules") based on historical sources, analogies, slightly-out-of-context scientific articles, and even a newsletter article that IMO was meant as a geek joke and is taken way too seriously (similar to the famous joke on the thermodynamics of hell [2]). The thesis itself is either pseudoscience or a fascinating and potentially useful analogy, depending on one's point of view. But it is still an original thesis. --Itub 08:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Human Chemistry by Lib Thims (not to be confused with the 1914 title) is self-published by LuLu according to the ref, but published by Institute of Human Thermodynamics Publishing LtD here. The ISBN doesnt seem to work on WorldCat. The "institute" describes it's self as "...a leading international professional body and learned society with over 75 members, which promotes the advancement and dissemination of a knowledge of and education in the science of human thermodynamics, pure and applied." It was founded by... Lib Thims. It issued this rather interesting press release about the book. The press release quotes Georgi Gladyshev as saying "(Thims) brilliant book symbolizes the beginning of a new era (epoch) in human history." The article Georgi Gladyshev was created by... User:Sadi Carnot and cites...Human Chemistry by Lib Thims. Now I don't want to read too much into this - it could be perfectly innocent - but I think some kind of investigation is needed. --TreeKittens 09:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in spite of the COI, but rewrite rather drastically. Possibly the book which is the present focus of the article might not be in the revised article at all, considering it isnt even in OCLC as checked in several different ways as well as ISBN, which is sometime wrong. --but perhaps it only exists as a book jacket at this time. Gladyshev is real --and notable--enough, but his relevance to the present topic may not be. -DGG —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 10:52, 8 October 2007

Note: the paperback versions were published Sep 13 and the hardcover versions Sep 24, i.e. about two weeks ago, but they are available in Amazon, as well as via ISBN search at BookFinder4U: (Volume One), (Volume Two) at about 35 book stores around the world. From what I have been told, it takes 6-8 weeks for ISBN numbers to enter all the various databases. In any event, this is not the first book on human chemistry, as mentioned below (it was Fairburn in 1914). As for Gladyshev not being relevant, he is a strong proponent of the subject of both human chemistry and the human molecule, see the following article (pg. 107):

• Gladyshev G. P. (2006). "The Principle of Substance Stability is Applicable to all Levels of Organization of Living Matter" [PDF], Int. J. Mol. Sci., 7, 98-110 - International Journal of Molecular Sciences (IJMS) (ISSN: 1422-0067 Online; ISSN: 1424-6783).

as well as here:

• Thermodynamics: General Theory of the Existence (2007) (English) (Russian), International Academy of Creative Endeavors.

Also, Gladyshev will be lecturing on his theory of hierarchical thermodynamics, human chemistry, and human molecule concepts at the 15th Annual World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine (Las Vegas) this December:

• Gladyshev, Georgi, P. (2007). The invited and guest speakers. The lecture: "Hierarchical thermodynamics – general theory of existence and living world development: model of aging and anti-aging quality of foods and medicines." The 15th Annual World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine & Regenerative Biomedical Technologies, held at the Venetian Hotel, Las Vegas, NV on December 12-15, 2007. American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine.

He also lectured on human chemistry at the 2006 American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine conference in Chicago. I hope this helps? --Sadi Carnot 13:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

DGG, with the greatest respect, from which reliable third-party sources should we rewrite the article? I also strongly suggest you take another detailed look at the sources for Georgi Gladyshev - but I agree they look impressive. Anyway the claimed quote I mentioned is in a press release by the author himself - not the article - and seems to me to be based only on this user-submitted comment on the sale website of the vanity publisher which publishes the book. --TreeKittens 11:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: I am obviously well aware of conflict of interest, being that I recently published a 824-page, two-volume book on human chemistry, but since when does that preclude me from writing up a short overview of the topic, in terms of what others have done, who originated the subject, who wrote the first book on human chemistry, etc. In other words, I wrote a short history on the topic, not at all referring to my own work, except for one or two sentences, with references, to tie the article together. In short, Johann von Goethe originated the subject, see, for example, Adler, Jeremy, ‘Goethe’s Use of Chemical Theory in His Elective Affinities,’ in Romanticism and the Sciences, ed. A. Cunningham and N. Jardin (Cambridge University Press, 1990), and William Fairburn wrote the first book on it. I wrote the overview article presenting their views (among others), not my own. --Sadi Carnot 13:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

* Keep. Fine article, and worth having. • Lawrence Cohen 13:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Update Per the changes that have gone through, stubbify this radically. I think there is still a germ of an article here, fake science, junk science or not, that would be just notable enough. But what has been revealed as the current sham of an article needs to go away and start over with lots of supervision. • Lawrence Cohen 15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Database results

PubMed search for "Human chemistry" - Phrase not found

Google scholar search for "Human chemistry" - 1,820 results with subjects ranging from metalloprotein structure to viruses. But none I can see that deal with this subject.

ISI Web of Knowledge search for "Human chemistry" - Phrase not found

PubMed central search for "Human chemistry" - Phrase not found

JSTOR search for "Human chemistry" - 20 hits, none dealing with this subject.

This is original research. It is not a real subject. Tim Vickers 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Tim, you are trying to confound unrelated subjects, i.e. biochemistry or medicinal chemistry and human chemistry, together to disparage this article. It obviously appears to be a subject to Goethe (1809), Fairburn (1914), C.G. Darwin (1952), Gladyshev (1978), or in recent times, the conception that humans are molecules that react and evolve together has been professed by Venezuelan chemical engineer Erich Müller, with his human molecular thermodynamics (for which he was interviewed in the newspaper for), or more recently, e.g. physicists Ingo Müller and Wolf Weiss with their 2005 book Entropy and Energy – a Universal Competition (ch 20 “Socio-thermodynamics: integration and segregation in a population), or in Ingo Müller 2007 book A History of Thermodynamics, which covers the history of the views of socio-thermodynamics, i.e. the thermodynamics of the reactions between human molecules, as well as many others. In sum, in 1914 American naval engineer William Fairburn has published a full book on human chemistry; hence it is a subject. --Sadi Carnot 15:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to confound unrelated subjects is exactly what this article attempts to do. Why else would it cite a National Geographic article about neurochemistry and dopamine/oxytocin as an example of "Human chemistry", in article that actually states specifically in the introduction that "This analogy of an "interpersonal chemistry" should be distinguished from discussion of actual biochemistry involved in human bonding,". I am in no mood to mince words and try to be polite about this. The article is in my opinion deliberately written to mislead and is one of the worst examples of original research posing as genuine science I have seen. Tim Vickers 15:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim, while I understand that you disagree with the premise and theory of this article, but it is a published view with books and references going back to 1809. --Sadi Carnot 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It is at best pseudoscience, and, by being at the extreme fringes of kookery, completely undeserving of five articles. Perhaps footnotes under Pseudoscience, Fraud, and Crank (person). Kww 15:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Commment, specifically regarding Müller and this link referenced in Human molecule: [3] This is again a perfect example of taking an analogy someone else made way too seriously, and indeed more seriously than the author himself. Pay attention to this quote: 'Dr Müller hopes his analogies will not be taken too seriously: "Obviously people are much more complicated than molecules—cartoon science is just a way to help someone understand something. One molecule may form strong bonds to another of the same type but I would hope that your decision to marry would be a little more complex than that!"'. This is just a case of a professor using entertaining analogies to keep his students awake and to help them visualize the material better. Professors do that all the time. I have taught organic chemistry and used metaphors of atoms fighting one another over who gets to be bonded during a substitution reaction, complete with a dialog between the atoms. Does that mean that I'm postulating a theory that atoms behave like people? Nope. Just trying to get the attention of the students! I give this just as an example of how these articles take ideas out of context. And then saying that this "science" was founded by Goethe when he wrote a work of fiction! That frankly doesn't make any sense. --Itub 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Itub, Muller seems to have taken the subject seriously enough to write a 1998 article, i.e. Human Societies – a curious application of thermodynamics, in the journal of Chemical Engineering Education. --Sadi Carnot 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In that article Muller describes the idea as a "loose analogy" and that these ideas are "basically similes" - this is NOT a scientific theory as this article claims. Tim Vickers 16:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Most of the article seems to be original research compiling the various studies or sources into some sort of essay type article. As Tim mentions, Nothing of this phrase "Human Chemistry" is mentioned on pubmed or google scholar. This article is a hodgepodge of various pseudo scientific theories which, when added together, would equal Original research. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a vanity article by Sadi Carnot meant as a self-promotion for the book. There are other articles where worthwhile content can be kept (such as interpersonal chemistry). Because of the self-promotionalism, I argue for a complete deletion with no prejudice towards recreating a disambiguation or a redirect to interpersonal chemistry. ScienceApologist 16:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I must concur with Tim Vickers on this. The sources are being misrepresented and too much of the authors own work is being used as a source. I can't even lay my hands on a copy of the book, so verifying the content of the book isn't possible, which isn't great. Nick 16:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete as above, or chop down massively to stub and rebuild if the topic can be shown to be a genuine one, and Tim Vickers' searches quoted above lead me to believe that it isn't this is not a genuine topic. I am also concerned about Sadi Carnot's activities, as described above regarding misleading compilation of unrelated sources, and support the imposition of a ban. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• [Edited above comment.] — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Inflate Gibbs free energy contribution of this article to +∞ and sit back and watch. Any content which is not original research, promovertisements, or peotic metaphorical whimsy can be added to interpersonal chemistry at one's discretion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I have just spent some time breaking up the walled garden of links that Sadi Carnot has been building for his articles, and have removed them from Interpersonal chemistry, William Armstrong Fairburn, Elective Affinities, Chemistry (disambiguation), Charles Galton Darwin, Georgi Gladyshev and even Love, where he'd added the cover of his book. I see that Kww has already edited human molecule down to the basics; if this article is deleted, that should also be (along with several redirects - check "what links here" on both). — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Libb Thims claims to be user:Sadi Carnot and this article is an advertisement for Thims' book. --Kkmurray 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Fix it! I think that there is definitely a lot of grey area here and that the best way to proceed is to meet some middle ground. Human chemistry and human molecule appear to be relatively new terms and thus special care must be taken not to define the term beyond what is currently out there. I think that Sadi Carnot may have crossed the line by putting too much of his analysis into the page without revealing it. Also the prominent placement of his book cover could be interpreted to be promotional. My suggestion are:

1. Merge Human molecule into human chemistry.

2. Provide a very basic definition of the human chemistry at the top revealing the fact that it is a relatively new area of study (even if the terms have been used in the past).

3. Summarize Goethe, Fairburn, and C.G. Darwin's usage of the term to remove any analysis of Thims.

4. Add another section to summarize Libb Thims ideas based on his published work.

5. Remove book cover.

I would like to assume good faith on the part of Sadi Carnot. He has obviously spent a lot of time studying the concepts, but I think that he needs to clearly reveal what new ideas and analysis he has contributed to the area. It just makes sense to take credit for your work! Perhaps Sadi Carnot could take some of the steps I suggested. I believe that they would address most of the concerns that have raised. M stone 03:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think that assuming good faith in this case is ridiculous. Such a massive piece of fraud cannot be perpetrated in good faith. One outcome of this discussion should be an indefinite block on [[[User:Sadi Carnot]]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs) 12:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I confess to being completely out of my depth here, but I am going to make a bold statement: Someone is being taken for a ride here. I think the walled garden of which Hex speaks is not limited to wikipedia. Can someone who is familiar with analysing web links please look into the websites of this "International Academy of Creative Endeavors" and its claimed relationship to the Russian Academy of Science as well as some of the links above just to be sure? This Gladyshev chap - its president - is credited with making the following claim in this article: "Diets including evolutionary young animal and vegetable foods stimulate longevity and improve the quality of human life. The degree of evolutionary youth of a food product is determined by its chemical composition and supramolecular structure. The chemical composition and supramolecular structure of a product depend, in their turn, on its ontogenetic and phylogenetic ages. An important quantitative measure of the gerontological efficiency of a food product is the Gibbs function of supramolecular structure formation, which characterizes the thermodynamic stability of its supramolecular structure." If this is peer-reviewed science (which it may be) I am just going to give up and live under the sea, but this is exactly why we amateurs have to rely on secondary sources. It should also be noted that Thims' self-published book references many of the wikipedia articles he has created. preview. OK, maybe I am ignorant or paranoid, but this reminds me of the Sokal Affair. --TreeKittens 06:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note also that humanthermodynamics.com also hosts the Journal of Human Thermodynamics which is run by Lib Thims and publishes his own work and that attributed to Georgi Gladyshev amongst others. The same domain also lists the books of these and other authors here. The website of the "International Academy of Creative Endeavors" prominently refers to the article in this journal in a manner which stands out from Gladyshevs' many other publications in other journals. link. Additionally, this page on the same site has a picture of Lib Thims' book, but possibly an earlier version and is layed out in a style which is... familiar. It also links to some of the wikipedia articles Thims has edited. I find the prominent display of a self-published, newly published work like this very strange on the website of an "International Institute" presided over by a 71-year-old soviet professor. I think these websites may be related in some way. Maybe I am just mad. I confess to being completely new to this kind of enquiry but I feel I should air these possibilities. --TreeKittens 12:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Very strong delete; what little bits of this article that aren't synthesis or hyperbole are dubious at best. I've looked through every single "reference", and those that aren't completely unrelated (or even flat out contradictory) are either in COI or not reliable. The author is being either severely misguided or gaming the system. — Coren ^(talk) 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment; I tried. I really tried to evaluate the article on its own merit (hence the delete above) but this is Time Cube-grade stuff. Only without the notability. Salt this and related articles, please. — Coren ^(talk) 03:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - OR totally unsupported by references. Keeping crank stuff like this makes a mockery of the entire wikipedia project. Bigdaddy1981 00:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus update

I really think this entire situation is very ridiculous, both human chemistry (Goethe, 1809) and human molecule (C.G. Darwin, 1952) are not my views, they are historical concepts. To prove this, going on the deletion suggestions, I will merge human molecule to human chemistry, add a few new book references (to the works of others), and splice out references to my work to a “further reading” section. I hope this clarifies my intentions. --Sadi Carnot 06:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• (Consensus update? Whose consensus?) Your intentions are quite clear. Do not add any references to your work to Wikipedia. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the suggestions of M stone, sjak, DGG, kfc, mansford, Zvika, Colonel, Wikipedist, among others, for which I count 12 keep or fix, 1 neutral, and 9 delete, I have completed the merge and removed the two books on human chemistry to a further reading section. The article now has 53 references (verses the 23 previous), none of which are my own except one reference related to the function of elements in the chemical formula for a human, and it is now a stand-alone article, none of which is based on my theories. --Sadi Carnot 10:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Most of the keep comments don't have any reason other that "it is a good article", "has many references", or "per someone else", while failing to address the concerns given by others. Namely, that this is "not a real subject" and that the references have been used misleadingly to give the impression that it is. No amount of rewriting can save an article on a topic that is not notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word.

Just from a quick look I found two more references that have been abused. The article says "Central to this process is the supposition of the existence of a human chemical bond, "A≡B", that can be quantified by terms such as bond energy, bond length, and bond strength.[7][8][9][10]" I looked at refs. 9 and 10, the ones I could access ([4] and [5]) and they absolutely make no such claim. They actually talk about biochemistry, hormones, and such, which is a legitimate subject, but they never say that "human chemical bonds" can be quantified with bond energies and such.

Every single reference I have been able to verify suffers from these kind of problems. I haven't been able to look at Darwin's and Fairburn's, but given the precedent, I suspect that they have been cited misleadingly as well. Sure, Fairburn wrote a book titled Human Chemistry, but that doesn't make it a notable subject, and certainly not a science. All the connections between the primary sources are your own, which is a prime example of WP:SYNTH. If it were a "real subject", you wouldn't need to base your assertion that it is on works of fiction and historical texts. --Itub 11:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Itub, I’ve added 55 references to this article. Every reference is accurate and none of them are my own. The Miller and Rodgers reference, i.e. the 2001 book Ontogeny of Human Bonding Systems, discusses bond energy, “bonding effort”, “dyadic bonds”, among others, and refers to John Bowlby’s theories of variation in spatial proximity in attachment bonds, as in bond length. Thank-you: --Sadi Carnot 11:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who's making the inference that what he calls "bonding effort" somehow has something to do with the bond energy of the chemical bond, and that theories of variation in spatial proximity in attachment bond somehow have something to do with bond lengths. From what I've been able to read of this book (it's on Google books), it doesn't use chemical terms at all. Again, this is a metaphor or an analogy gone out of control, combined with a creative use of citations. --Itub 12:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged some of the unreliable references with the "fact" template and some of the obviously incorrect assertions and interpretations with "dubious". However the basic problem remains, some of the sources use this phrase as a metaphor, some of the sources are on related subjects and do not use this phrase at all, and some of the references are on completely unrelated subjects. It's like writing a article on "animal magnetism" with a mix of novels, joke articles and physics papers on real magnetism. "Human chemistry" is just not a scientific theory - it's an analogy at best. Tim Vickers 15:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• I just wanted to clarify what I think a "fixed" article would look like. It would be significantly shorter. Perhaps about one quarter the current length. No Overview. No Precursory concepts. No 21st century applications. It is important that Thims analysis of other works that use the term, must be removed even if they are supported by a reference! Restrict discussion to how term was used, but not what it meant. M stone 12:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that not all sources use the same words, so how do you decide if it is the same "term" or not? Also, if you go all the way to showing how a term is used without saying what it means, you would be turning the article into a collection of quotations, which Wikipedia is not. Also, collecting primary sources of the use of a term goes against WP:NEO. The only way I see that some of this be reasonably kept would be by turning it into an article about the (old) book with the same title. The question would be whether that the book is notable enough. --Itub 12:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

its not the term that the article should be written about, but the concept. The idea of describing human interactions in these terms is notable, going back at least to Goethe's novel Elective Affinities . I see it as a metaphor--perhaps someone does take it more literally, and if so that should also be discussed. The book used at the lede image is very certainly not notable. I'm not sure the old books are notable either individually, but Human chemistry seems like a reasonable title for the concept. DGG (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget interpersonal chemistry. That article also contains copy and pasted chunks of the same original research synthesis by Sadi Carnot. It's a better title, but needs the editor's machete taken to it (which I may well do myself). — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just done that (and more besides) but these articles are still a mess. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article seems to be a synthesis of not notable references that are about the subject, joke references that are taken seriously and off-topic subjects that appear related but are not all brought together to form a original thesis (not counting the the article creator's recently published book). I had an impression of Sadi Carnot as being a good editor and find it disturbing that he would so completely misunderstand WP rules. Perhaps he understands them well enough to game the system. Many of the references are good references for closely related subjects such as the neurochemistry of love etc. There are sections of interpersonal chemistry that we need to keep. There may also be some place for brief mention of the various attempts to apply chemical theory to interpersonal relations within the context of the methaphorical use of the word chemistry to describe love. Such as "Various people have taken this metaphorical relation seriously and tried to apply various chemical theories to interpersonal relations but never to much success.ref ref ref ref--Nick Y. 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am more skeptical of this page now since I found a promotional page where Thims is featuring links to the wikipedias articles that he wrote (Thims' Storefront - Lulu.com). His book “Human chemistry” was self-published through Lulu.com which would seem to violate the Wikipedia self-published source policy for third party sources. He also promoted the page through the Wikipedia:Did_you_know feature on the main page. Based on this information I am no longer assuming good faith on the part of Sadi Carnot. :( M stone 17:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I just noticed the wonderfully ironic quote mentioned above that is in one of the references used to try to support the idea of "Müller's human molecular thermodynamics" It states:

"Dr Müller hopes his analogies will not be taken too seriously: "Obviously people are much more complicated than molecules—cartoon science is just a way to help someone understand something.link"

Curiouser and curiouser... many of the quoted testimonials on humanthermodynamics.com are attributed to Wikipedia editors, and link to their user pages. link. I find this guy hilarious. --TreeKittens 01:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete

As I am the author of both articles, I am putting speedy tags on both human chemistry and human molecule. --Sadi Carnot 18:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

CSD G7 does not apply here. It requires "the page's only substantial content was added by its author." The pages in question have multiple authors. --Kkmurray 19:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is silly, we all agree that this needs to be deleted, but if we apply the policies strictly we can't do it? Let me sort this out. Give me half an hour. Tim Vickers 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just remember to put an indefinite block on Sadi Carnot while you are at it. Deleting the article is of small importance compared to deleting the author.Kww 20:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: I am the sole editor, no content (other than deletions or typos) has been added, other than by me, hence CSD G7 applies. --Sadi Carnot 19:49, 10 October 2007 (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.