Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electron cloud densitometry


 * 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. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Electron cloud densitometry

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

PRODded by the IP user with rationale:  The author  deprodded the article without adequately addressing the concerns — the new section consists only of background information about van der Waals forces and a description of two images with no clear relation to the section's topic; and contrary to the deprodder's assertion, "elementary physics" as defined by the IP includes basic quantum mechanics. All references are from O. P. Kucherov et al. or are irrelevant to the ostensible topic. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 08:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 08:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - this seemingly decent article provides no evidence of notability, most of the refs being either a smokescreen or just background. As not says, the on-topic refs are single-source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of documented evidence that this has been more widely influential. Huge chunks of it were copied from Atomic theory without proper attribution. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Save. At present, the electron cloud densitometry is used in many scientific institutions around the world, though under other names. At the request of reviewers, I am creating a section to highlight this fact. The author.
 * Comment This article barely mentions its ostensible topic. There's almost nothing in it about what this technique actually is or how it works, and instead there's a lot of words that don't belong here.  I'm not going to do this while the AfD is pending, because there wouldn't be anything left, but if the article is kept as a notable topic, 90% of what's there at present needs to be deleted entirely.  That said, I'm not certain the topic ISN'T notable, just that this article isn't much help with learning about it as it stands now. PianoDan (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The == Equipment == section added, 21 April 2022
 * Delete After putting in some more effort to find reasonable sources, or evidence to support the claim that the technique is in wide use, I've drawn a blank. Unless the author can provide more evidence to support the claim that the technique is widely used under other names (and why it shouldn't be listed BY those names in Wikipedia), I don't see a basis for keeping this. PianoDan (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or WP:TNT. Article is too immature and sources are not plausible. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC).
 * The answer for PianoDan. From the equipment section it follows that this technique is widely used in the world. And different names simply characterize the features of different devices., 22 April 2022
 * Wikipedia calls things by their established names. It is not the place to advocate for new names that have not become standard already. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't cite an edit you just made to an article to show that the article itself is correct - that's just circular. You need to cite references to reliable sources. (Not predatory journals). PianoDan (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The answer for XOR&#39;easter.The term “electron cloud density” is encyclopedic, it was suggested by Richard Feynman in his The Feynman Lectures on Physics (references [15]), which are at hand for every physicist., 11:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * First, "electron cloud density" long predates Feynman (here's an example from 1938); unlike what the article currently implies, Feynman did not invent the idea of an "electron cloud". Second, just because the term "electron cloud densitometry" is a term that could logically apply does not imply that it is the term that the field has standardized upon, which is the term Wikipedia should use. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2022 (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.