Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 10: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:30, 15 September 2006

< September 9	September 11 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
 -->
-====[[Physics misconceptions]]====
-*Respectfully request to '''undelete and relist'''. I came to this article when voting for
-[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science misconceptions]]. I believe that the  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics misconceptions]] was closed without due deliberation: only three votes, two for deletion. the issue is not like a vanity page or obvious hoax, which may be left to the discretion of the closing admin.
-:My understanding is that the history of errors is just as important as the history of accomplishments. Quite a few misconceptions are notable and widely dicussed. Unfortunately I cannot judge the article now, since it is deleted, but I am aware that the topic is notable. Although the article may be a cut and paste from [http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/scenario/miscon.htm]. Also, after doing some google I am aware that the article may require a heavy cleanup. For example: "Water sinks in oil as water is heavier than oil" is discussed somewhere as a "physics misconception" It is rather a slack of natural language, rather than a "misconception in physics", because it is a common way of saying: "[[iron]] is [[heavier]] than wood": a normal person will hardly say "iron is denser than wood" in casual speech.
-:In any case, the article may require a closer scrutiny. [[User:Mukadderat|Mukadderat]] 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' Clearly ''no consensus'', and as it looks usage of strange language (unusual terms). If the article can not be improved, and expanded, it must be deleted (again) at some point of time. [[User:Yy-bo]] 19:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-** Why not just '''kd''' and wait until such an article is produced then?  Eventualism does not require an existing article. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 23:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn'''  1 keep, nom + 1 delete.  Only solid argument is the one delete, but with only three opiners, no consensus isthe better evaluation of the AfD.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 21:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep deleted''' but '''allow recreation'''. The original article was a blatant copyright violation. -- [[User:Kjkolb|Kjkolb]] 11:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-*Unencyclopaedic tone + copyvio = '''keep deleted''' for now.  Do we really need copies of personal essays on "comon misconceptions in ''foo''" with no objective definition of common?  A very long article on a subject which is really little more than one of those seasonal spacefillers in the journals.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 12:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep deleted''' but '''allow recreation''' is the right approach here. Although I'm concerned that writting such an article from NPOV might be a daunting task. [[User:Themindset|Themindset]] 18:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)