English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Periodic Systems of Small Molecules

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Periodic Systems of Small Molecules

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is nothing more than an essay. Even though it has references, I think this article fails wp:OR. Nergaal (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete, unless someone knowledgable is prepared to do an extensive rewrite (but I doubt that this article is salvageable). The idea of periodicity in molecular systems (not limited to small molecules) seems to be a valid topic within chemistry (it is particularly relevant to computational chemistry and materials science, as near as I can tell), but this article does not do a good job of addressing the topic. Some related Wikipedia articles include molecular geometry, molecular dynamics, computational chemistry, and molecular modeling. --Orlady (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep, the topic is notable, the content is referenced and not a case of OR . Wikipedia has simple procedures in place to invite editors in to improve the article where needed. V8rik (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep there seem to be sufficient sources. That an article should be improved is not reason for deletion, or we;d have an extremely small encyclopedia with only the Featured articles--and, in my opinion, not all of them either.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep. If it has reliable sources (and this article has plenty), it's not original research. Original research "refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." It needs to be cleaned up, wikified, not deleted.--hkr Laozi speak 05:18, 24 October 2010 (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.