Incubator escapee wiki:Articles for deletion/Wave model

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was

Wave model

See anonymous comment on Talk:Wave model. Looking through my textbooks, there is no single "wave model." Recommend deletion; alternative is move page to more appropriate title and rewrite as (redundant) disambiguation-style page. - mako 07:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the top Google results for "wave model" are for models of (ocean) waves. -- mako 07:56, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Question: The Atom article contains the following text:

Many theories for the structure of the atom have been suggested, including: Plum pudding model, Cubical atom, Bohr model, and Wave model, which is widely accepted today.

Does this need to be changed? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 17:14, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'd add a "what is widely termed the" in front of "wave model," as it looks like people want to keep this article. The wave model of the atom (a misnomer, as only the electrons are given the wave/quantum treatment) is less of a physical model than a mathematical description, though it can have a physical interpretation; those familiar orbital structures, for example. (Btw, when does this VfD process end?) -- mako 06:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, misleading classification, unhelpful. Wyss 00:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, very misleading and possibly dangerous to Wikipedia's reputation. It's original essays (vandalism?) like this that are the reason irate parents start complaining on our site about misleading the children (won't someone please think of the children?). --Deathphoenix 19:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Abstain. Rossami makes a good point, but I probably wouldn't be able to make an unbiased vote on this, so I won't. --Deathphoenix 02:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This article has been around since 2001. It has been edited by a significant number of good contributors. The some of the concerns raised on the article's Talk page are valid but some are overstated. Despite the fact that there is no single "wave model" in advanced study, it is not uncommon to discuss "the wave model" in introductory classes as if it were a single model. (See, for example, our own well-written synopsis at Atom#Structure.) Someone could easily be searching for this term. Arguably, the synopsis is more complete and better written than this drill-down article but that's a matter for clean-up, not deletion. Rossami (talk) 23:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, article needs cleanup and expansion, more on different wave model theories. Megan1967 23:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• keep imho useful information could be expanded by knowledgeable editors. antifinnugor 22:00, 14 Jan 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.