Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical bonding model

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, some sources have now been added and consensus is that this should not just be deleted. Davewild (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical bonding model

I had originally prodded this page under its old name of Molecular bonding model with the rationale that it was turning up absolutely no reliable sources whatsoever. The move to chemical bonding model has produced a few more hits using the term (which is why I nixed my own prod), but nonetheless it still seems to be a neologism. Page's author left comment on my talk page promising addition of sources, but so far I see none. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving the page a chance. I hope you can give it a second chance. I've included references I hope that helps. Silberbge general chemistry text covers this material between chapters 9 through 11. I understand your issue with the name. There isn't a good name, I would be happy to title the page "bonding models", "chemical bonding theories", "molecular bonding theories", "Models of Chemical Bonding", or "bonding theories" among others. It doesn't make a difference to me since all are used and often in the same text. This area of research hasn't been truly active for at least 50 years and there has been no need to maintain a strict vocabulary around the subject since most of the "models" are only taught to students as an introduction to bonding. Ideally editors with a chemical background could find a name through consensus. As I said before I'm new to Wikipedia and I defer to your better judgment.--OMCV (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there is now some kind of references. Although there is a big overlap with chemical bonding. Graeme Bartlett (talk)02:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I considered incorporating segments on Valence shell electron pair repulsion (VSEPR) Theory, Crystal Field Theory (CFT), and Ligand Field Theory (LFT) into chemical bonding. I didn't go this route since chemical bonding seemed bloated and ripe for division into separate pages. For example Valence Bond Theory (VBT) and Molecular Orbital (MO) Theory get a health treatment on the page even though they have their own pages. There is even a well written "Comparison of valence bond and molecular orbital theory". So should links to the remaining bonding models(theories) be added to chemical bond?

Another issue with chemical bonding is that minor or sub-categories of bonds types are included on equal terms with the major ones. The major bonding types (strong chemical bonds) are covalent, ionic, and metallic; even dative is a subcategory of covalent bonding. Dative and the others minor bonds should be identified as less significant. Thats might seem ancillary issue but how are the issues of chemical bonding going to be refined. Does the page simple increase in size to the point where the significant information is diluted by second tier information or do we give the second tier its own venue. Does there need to be a page "types of chemical bonds" to collectively list things like Bent bonds and Polar covalent bond and the others minor bonds in a single place? I hope this helps.--OMCV (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This new article does have a number of problems, but OMCV does raise some issues about the article on the chemical bond which also has problems, although I do not entirely agree with him about what they are. I am quite sure that a number of editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry will wade in fairly soon and the issues will get resolved. I would hope to do so myself, but am really tied up with other matters right now. As it stands, we have a new editor whom we should encourage and not discourage by deleting this article. It is really a question of how we have an introductory article that leads to a quite a large number of more detailed articles. --Bduke (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree again. I've gone through and read the bonding page in more detail and much of the associated discussion page. I feel like a poor synthetic chemist with a most limited understanding of bonding theory. When I think of bonds I usually think of MO's if I'm dealing with a transition metal orbitals and CFT hybridized orbitals if I'm dealing with main group atoms. I've gone through and tightened up the page. I'm pretty sure I've removed anything that is my opinion. In doing so I dealt with the issues I personally had with the page. I didn't like the way I split Valence shell electron pair repulsion (VSEPR) Theory, Crystal Field Theory (CFT) into a category separate from the other theories, honestly that was too creative.

The name of the page is still a nonissue for me and I'll be happy with what ever title it gets. While this concept might not have a commonly recognized name it does exist. A page concerning this concept has serious utility in directing undergraduate level students between the different ideas they are being taught often simultaneously in a confusing way. This isn't to say that this page is a text book page but rather a summing list or directional reference. It is analogous to Mountain ranges of Colorado which has a creative title that can be phrased in different ways but deals with an easily recognized concept which deserves a page.

After reviewing the Chemical Bonding's discussion I recognize Bduke as an authority on this subject and will take any advice he has to offer. If the page comes down than I recognize that I attempted a subject too far out of my specialization and in the future I'll stick to material I know better, no hard feelings. If the page stays up I'll continue to tighten the page while learning more about the subject. Identifying other theories and ideas that would be best introduced from this page such as modern valence bond theory (which I recently learned of). As I said before I think the page has real utility. Thanks for taking the time to deal with this page.--OMCV (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and allow any possible renaming, merging or restructuring of this and related articles to be discussed on talk and project pages. This is the type of article where web searches are pretty useless for establishing notability, because it is about a concept which is not necessarily always referred to by the same name. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 20 March 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.