Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical game theory

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. ✗plicit 23:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical game theory

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Chemical game theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This seems to be original research, with the main references specifically using this terminology being a 2002 Phd THesis (https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/4191) and a 2018 paper with only 15 citations (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b03835). The term "Knowlecules" on Google has very few results.

Proposing it under AfD as an editor declined it through PROD 7804j (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. 7804j (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not enough reception in academia. It has been cited 15 times, so clearly not a well established concept. Furthermore, there is actually a completely unrelated 2016 more highly cited paper that uses the same term for some very different (RNA interactions) further muddling the terminology and adding to the confusion. --hroest 20:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Tveloz should know better that we have never published original research, which is outside the scope of an encyclopedia and places our charitable status in danger as mission creep. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2025 (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.