Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introductory Physical Science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Introductory Physical Science[edit]
Notability not established Samw 02:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't see non-notability listed as a VFD criterion. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 02:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are quite a few books with this title (or with this phrase as part of the title). This 13-word stub gives no clue as to which book is being discussed, and even if we were to pick one to expand the article around, there's not a whole lot of expansion to be done for a high school science text. Redirect to Physical science. This could probably have been speedied as a short article with little or no context. AиDя01DTALK 03:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Utterly useless substub that I would speedy delete under criterion #1 + nonsense. The article says that it's a book that's about what it's about. Nothing specific, just a user test of the "I made an article about my textbook" sort. Ridiculous to even debate it. Geogre 03:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I would have speedy deleted this as well, there's no content here. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, could be speedied for lack of context. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. As Wikipedia:Patent nonsense would define it, it's "meaningful after a fashion..." sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 09:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Physical Science and encourage author to add a bit more substance to articles. Internodeuser 13:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Looks like a newbie test to me. Absolutely no content whatsoever—the VfD notice is bigger than the article. Hermione1980 18:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep -- It seems to be a somewhat commonly used textbook. I used it, though I don't know just how widely used it is. (This vote is an average -- it actually amounts to "Keep if widely used, delete if not.") Haikupoet 18:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as content free. I believe CSD article criteria #1 covers this. --Carnildo 19:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Insufficient context to know which of many books with the same title is intended, and says nothing about the book anwyway. Quale 21:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless it can be heavily added expanded upon. Otherwise, it is not worth it. 23:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.