Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to atomic structure Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Introduction_to_atomic_structure

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to atomic structure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

The material here is already in Atom and other articles. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is a precedent that simplified explanations of physics articles are appropriate content. See for example, Special relativity and Introduction to special relativity. I can't see how this is a different case, the poor quality of the article notwithstanding. Jan 1922 (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appealing to precedent at afds is not very satisfying given how easy it is to create articles, etc - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Why do you feel these articles are appropriate for an encyclopedia? ErikHaugen (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to atom. While there is certainly precedent (that I support) for simplified/introductory articles on advanced concepts, this article isn't that. It's a quick sentence or two that sounds like an introduction to a school essay, focuses only on one specific application of the stated topic (one that I'm tempted to say isn't even the main reason the topic is notable), and provides no information about it. Concur with nom, it's setting up to be a content-fork of atom. That article already does cover the basics and applications in addition to more advanced material, and is in fact a featured article. The FA review process noted the article contained substantial material accessible to the lay reader and contained summary/overview of advanced material with links to more detailed articles about those topics--that's exactly what one would like to see in an "introduction to" article. The decision to offload a really-simplified-intro/top-level-overview into a separate new article is an editorial one that should be discussed on its talk-page. No problem with the WP:BOLD creation here, just I don't support it (per discussion after a bold act). DMacks (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you only support "intro" articles (Category:Introductions) when the "main" article is inadequate? If so, how do you decide whether or not it would be better to address the main article instead of making a new one to complement it? ErikHaugen (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support intro vs advanced when there is substantial separate sets of info and two clearly separate audiences that have little overlapping content needs. DMacks (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect per above. If necessary, expand atomic structure (now a redirect) to parallel molecule/molecular geometry. --Kkmurray (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I'm not sure how I missed that atomic structure was a redirect. Perhaps I should have taken this to requested moves instead; this may be better, although concerns about forking remain. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to atom, at least for now. An introduction article like this could and likely should exist; I don't think introduction articles in general are questionable. —innotata 23:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, content fork. Tend to be slightly hesitant for a redirect since it doesn't seem likely that someone would search for "introduction to atomic structure" in an encyclopedia.Chhe (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although introduction to article can be useful for very complex topics, atom just isn't one. The atom article, as a broad interest high traffic article should be accessible to a very wide audience. Any real technical bits can be relegated to more specialized topic, that are summerized in atom. I don't think a redirect is necessary.TimothyRias (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.