Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boltzmon (2nd nomination)


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 07:49Z 

Boltzmon


I nominate this article to be deleted and the previously deleted version to be undeleted. The previous article was better written and contained more information.--Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * An exact copy of the previous version is at http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Boltzmon .--Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know what's in the previous version, but it sounds like you don't really want it deleted, you just want the information that was in the previous article, and that can be done without deletion.  This article could be merged with Black hole, but then, I don't know how much information and sourcing you were hoping to add.-FisherQueen (Talk) 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. We need to know why the previous version was deleted and how? Maybe there was good reasons and if that content was better than the current content, that is a good reason to delete the current article. Did it come to Afd? If so, can we have the link? Or is this just a content dispute? If so, AfD is not the answer. --Bduke 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading Articles for deletion/Boltzmon, where editors challenged the claim that there were any sources at all that supported such a name. Uncle G 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The old article appears to have been properly deleted. The nominator is right. It was better than this version, so this version should be deleted too. The only way to save it is to have some proper references to proper articles in peer reviewed physics journals that use the term "Boltzmom", and are talking about the same thing as this article. --Bduke 11:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.