Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michał Gryziński


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Hopefully, it will lead to some article improvement. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Michał Gryziński

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

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics, it was found to fail WP:NPROF and WP:GNG, along with all similar topics. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 04:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science,  and Poland. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 04:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. A few very highly cited papers, all single-authored. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC).


 * Strong Keep. The characterization of the discussion in WikiProject Physics in the justification here mixes up the free fall atom in the context of the Atomic Structure template (where it should not be included) with the work of the man himself. This man's work on scattering theory was influential and even is free-fall atom model is notable. The fact that one paper disputes his free-fall model and that the model is not used in no way alters its thought provoking character. This work is scientific and notable. The only issue in the WikiProject discussion was the template which should have a higher bar for inclusion. Regarding Notability (academics), he has 4 papers with over 500 to 1500 citations apiece, certain "evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources."  His atomic model, while seeming rubbing some people the wrong way, is clearly "interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice". There are large numbers of individual scientists in Wikipedia below this bar. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I remain neutral. In its favor, Ramsauer–Townsend effect links to Gryzinski in a non-gratituous way. A a discussion in Talk:Bohr model suggest that it could be linked there too. However a bit of work is needed. Another possibility is to merge the free fall model into another article.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Bohr model is still very popular especially for Rydberg atoms/molecules, and free-fall atomic model suggests to consider not only circular electron trajectories, but also radial - through dozens of peer-reviewed articles in top physics journals, focused on good agreement with various types of experimental data. In contrast, it seems the only peer-reviewed criticism is 2 page 1973 Bates, Snyder article, not even comparing with experimental data (states: "Laboratory data are not available for comparison"). Jarek Duda (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment2: At this stage it seems like a keep. But can somebody provide more sources to help the article?--ReyHahn (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If the delete effort is removed I will add some refs. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.