Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quark Shell Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quark_Shell

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 (including images) as WP:OR and non-notable fringe theory. Sandstein (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quark Shell

As far as I can tell, this page contains a theory that was kicked out the nuclear structure article for being too fringey. It sure looks sketchy to me, but I'm no expert. FCSundae (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like a copyvio... at the very least, it's an essay and not an encyclopedia entry. 70.51.9.170 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is such a thing as a "quark shell model," but the papers date to the late 1970's, so I can't read them until I go to work on Monday. I see no evidence of copyvio. However, the self-made plots and they style of the text lead me to believe that this is probably original research. I'll get back to this when I can; somebody remind me if I still haven't done so by Monday night. -- SCZenz (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Nuclear Structure Talk page, I outlined my case for deletion (this article used to be a sub-section in nuclear structure). Basically the article seems to be describing in excruciating detail a theory for which I have only found two peer reviewed sources (both by the same author). This theory is fringe, not mainstream, and since (as far as I can tell) the scientific community at large has not picked up on it, I would not call it notable (maybe even original research?). But more importantly, the writeup itself is very confusing. I'm not an expert in QCD, but I am a scientist... and I can't decipher what the article is trying to say. This makes it unsuitable for a general purpose encyclopedia. In short, unless it undergoes major revision (to cite sources for all of its claims; and to make it clear and cogent), it should be deleted. --Kebes (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The theory was published in 2004 (not clear if this was peer-reviewed; it's a conference proceedings, rather than a regular journal issue, which means that inclusion is up to the conference organizer rather than up to an editorial board.), and has recieved zero citations since then. Fringe theory, not notable by a long shot. Bm gub (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let me strengthen my claim from "fringe" to "completely crackpot". I read the papers listed on the talk page, and there's no physics in there at all. The author showed that if you put masses in crystal lattice, you can imagine writing a harmonic oscillator potential for each mass; he then points out that harmonic oscillators occur sometimes in quantum mechanics and declares (with no calculations, equations , or data) that this explains all of nuclear physics. Ugh. Bm gub (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form. If it were rewritten completely and the claims cited, there might still be problems, but it's hard even to think that far ahead. Many aspects of this exposition to look like original research. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2008 (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.