Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMGM - Lync’s Molecular Geometry 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LMGM - Lync’s Molecular Geometry Model

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

No references to this term after web search. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 02:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that this article was Just should created give you some indication that this was a recent discovery. Despite a formulas "popularity" on the internet, the significance can still be great. I recommend you try construct a Lewis Dot Diagram for something like [PCl6]– then reconsider your position..

I suggest you read the notability guide lines "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unit388 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The formula is unsourced, the provenance of the image is unclear (license claims to be work of US government, but the URL didn't look like that), and the only reference in the article that referred to LMGM was a short document on Google Docs. No references on the web, no way to tell what this is. Looks like OR. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research that doesn't make any sense. Also, the image is all over the internet in the strangest places (pinterest?) and is almost certainly mistagged. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image seems to be originally at File:VSEPR_geometries.PNG. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If your searching the internet for VSEPR theory or molecular geometry it makes sense.... Also its not research its a formula.. as a formula it only produces one answer and its obviously correct. 3rd, as the poster it's not my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unit388 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incoherent account of a topic for which there are not sufficient sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2015 (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.