Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born-Oppenheimer equation


 * 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   redirect to Born–Oppenheimer approximation. ⇌ Jake   Wartenberg  07:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Born-Oppenheimer equation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be unpublished WP:OR that has no place on Wikipedia. ukexpat (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur. — raeky  t  14:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  14:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but with a significant overhaul. I can't make any sense of the current article, but the equation appears to be a genuine tool in chemistry - UC Davis' chemwiki entry gives a better idea of what the equation actually is. Google Books turns up plenty of uses for it, so we do need an article on this subject - but it needs seroius attention from someone who knows what they're doing. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  15:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch that. Delete: looking over the article again I realise that this is basically someone's term paper; there's nothing about the (as above, probably notable) equation itself in there. Blow it up and start again. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  15:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And we have an article on it already, Born–Oppenheimer approximation, well the real one not someones OR of it. — raeky  t  15:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weird, I did a search for "Born-Oppenheimer approximation" and didn't find that article - must have mistyped it or something. Anyway, given that this article adds nothing to people's understanding of the B-O approximation, there's a good case for a speedy deletion under WP:G10. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  15:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - seems to be covered properly in existing article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is nobody's term paper; it is a summary of results in the references, most of them journal articles in peer-reviewed chemical physics journals. That said, there are some serious problems here.
 * First, there is likely COI, as most of the papers include an M. Baer, which is close to the user name of the originating editor, Baemic. The COI means that this article is POV pushing and non-neutral with what looks to me like undue weight ascribed to the author's approach. The discussion at Help desk seems to confirm the blatant desire to advertise his theory.
 * Second, this article has considerable overlap with Born–Oppenheimer approximation. Born–Oppenheimer approximation uses time-independent electronic bases and this article extends to time dependendent electronic bases, but they rest on the same foundation and both cover the time-independent case in depth. The time dependent basis deserves a modest section in the Born–Oppenheimer approximation article, but the topic of this article is wholly redundant with Born–Oppenheimer approximation.
 * Third, it is off topic, but I'll note that the editor has inserted his stuff after the references in the Diabatic article. This article needs cleanup, too.
 * Because of the redundancy with Born–Oppenheimer approximation, the conflict of interest WP:COI, the non-neutral point of view WP:NPOV, the undue weight WP:UNDUE and the blatant advertising WP:ADVERT through WP:REFSPAM, this article should be deleted per WP:TNT. --Mark viking (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Born–Oppenheimer approximation, a much better article on the exact same subject. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as COI fork. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC).
 * Redirect to Born–Oppenheimer approximation. This is a rather transparent content fork to push a particular POV. --Guy Macon (talk)
 * Well we should delete without leaving a history - nothing worth keeping; happy to have a redirect re-created once this article is deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2013 (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.