Talk:Fine chemical

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Abstract of Fine Chemicals - The Inductry and the Business ISBN 978-0-470-62767-9. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2011113010010141.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

On the copypasted text

See User:PeterRPollak. --vuo (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No answer in 11 days, so deleting. --vuo (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article?

Since this entire article is unsubstantiated assertions and is in places demonstrably license-violating copied text, I think we should consider deleting it altogether and let someone start from scratch if the article is truly needed, rather than trying to patch the existing skeleton into something defensible as an "encyclopedic" entry.

What do you think?

Riventree (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for deleting it. I suspect a bunch of the text (if not easily demonstrated) is copy pasted from somewhere, and I found at least one reference to a supposed book that doesn't even exist on the supposed author's web page or CV (which may or may not be a leaked unpublished draft that has "DO NOT QUOTE" stuck all over it). A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed a ref that was on a line about a book being the best manual for something that was just an incomplete citation of the book itself. The "handbook" turned out to be a 48 volume long reference, which I suppose is great if you're designing the chemical pilot plant and being paid hourly but sounds like something that there's probably computer software for these days that you can plug the end product into and get a full list without looking through 48 volumes of paper. Everything in this article is cringy, from talking about "blockbuster drugs" like a stockbroker trying to convince you to drop part of your portfolio into pharma shares to the hideous colored tables that don't work right when you adjust the browser width.

Edit: And I never did find out what the fuck a "fine chemical" is, although I already knew so that wasn't an issue. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove tag

Added tag. Article has few references, almost all from 2009-2011. Most aren't online resources. I don't have the knowledge or energy to attempt improving it, but it seems to need a bit of work. Reads like it was written by one person and hasn't been changed much for about ten years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champlax (talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]