Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum rate 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Quantum rate theory

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

This is basically a WP:DICTDEF and has no hopes of ever evolving beyond this. You calculate various rates according to various quantum theories and models. That's it.

The article was prodded, but an IP objected without rationale, so I'm taking it to AFD instead. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, there is plenty of reliable coverage in independent sources from which the article can be expanded.

SailingInABathTub 🛁 01:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * These are still nothing that ammounts to a topic. There's just random instances of random rates being calculated according to various models which happen to be quantum. It's like having a topic on "Canadian car mechanics" where you're studying the mechanics of cars that happened to be owned by Canadians. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find significant coverage of "the mechanics of cars that happened to be owned by Canadians" in reliable, independent secondary sources - can you link any? SailingInABathTub 🛁 03:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I tried to fix up this article after it was first created, which involved removing a lot of copyvio. It's been expanded again; someone with more library access than I have at the moment should check for excessively close copying. That aside, I've come to think that there isn't a coherent topic here. The words "quantum", "rate", and "theory" have been used in conjunction to describe the calculation of some rate in various models that use quantum physics in various ways. Assembling those various uses together would be creating an appearance of unity where none existed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Honestly, I think there MIGHT be a topic there, but the recent re-expansion by an IP editor has made the article so terrible as to warrant WP:TNT. As far as I can tell from the copyrighted material that was removed and the sources, this is a theory that adapts Marcus theory using a particular set of equations, so not just a general topic, and if we could find someone who could write a coherent article on THAT theory, it probably warrants inclusion per .  But if it keeps getting either blanked back to a WP:DICTDEF or bulked out with milquetoast generalities, then there's no point in keeping it. PianoDan (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Response: It is true that you can calculate various rates according to various quantum theories and models, but the ratio between the conductance quantum and quantum capacitance, which is a pure electron quantum rate constant of a quantum channel is the most basic case from which all the others can be derived as a special case (including Marcus theory). I rephrase the topic to make this clear, but perhaps the title of the paper should be changed to the "quantum rate theory of the electron" or "electron rate theory".
 * Perhaps the title may change to Quantum Rate Principle? Apparently, all that is said to be quantum rate theories are derived from this principle (in one or another way) which is the ratio between the quantum conductance and quantum of capacitance or chemical capacitance. 168.227.32.91 / 45.6.149.12 20:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete There is no topic here. The introduction introduces a thesis: that effectively any ratio can be called a rate, and claiming that it is common in science to do so. It cites nothing that (from their titles) would support the general position.  It gives a bad example: flux (e.g. magnetic flux is measured in tesla), but presumably flux density is meant (magnetic flux density is measured in tesla per square metre), though to my knowledge one never refers to spatial densities as "rates". Is there a discipline known as "quantum rate theory" or a "quantum rate principle"? I strongly doubt it. I don't expect that "rates of events" fit a general pattern in quantum mechanics, and so each case must be studied in its own context, which suggests that this cannot be a coherent topic. Can one juxtapose terms like "quantum", "rate" and "theory" to mean something like "theoretical rate determination in quantum systems" (note: "rate" here would normally mean temporal rate of a process only)?  Sure, but the compound phrase occurring in some textbook does not make it a topic, especially one that would need to be a field of study to qualify.  172.82.46.195 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC) On looking more closely, the phrase is quite common, but it seems to mainly refer to more than electron transfer, and presumably tries to incorporate tunneling effects, since these do not manifest in classical thermodynamics.  The rather simplistic stitching together of the context-sensitive value of quantum capacitance (which is presented in Quantum rate theory as being inversely proportional to temperature, although temperature does not feature in its definition) strikes me as extreme OR (meaning that it seems very unlikely that the content has been sourced).  I would argue for WP:TNT through deletion.  172.82.46.195 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note also what looks like WP:OR at Conductance quantum apparently introducing ideas from Quantum rate theory, which IMO should be reverted. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, see this diff 2601:647:5800:1A1F:CCBF:2541:EADD:F590 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Possible WP:OR. This looks like something from a textbook or a physics paper, which is not what Wikipedia is about. This could be transwikied to Wikiversity as an essay, as Wikiversity is generally a more acceptable place for original research. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B15A:4ECC:3C0E:728A (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Too much original research. Title is confusing, and content does appear to be from a thesis, textbook or a physics paper. --  Otr500 (talk) 10:28, 6 August 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.