Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Age of physics


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Golden Age of physics

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

There is no clearly defined "Golden Age of physics", hence this article is POV commentary and is WP:SYN at best. Also, this might have the effect of being a neologism WP:NEO -- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Steve Quinn (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  —Steve Quinn (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article is a stub article, and does not contain any information not already in other articles, besides the above mentioned issues. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect - to History of physics. Sources should be provided. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add "without prejudice;" also is it Golden age of physics per WP:CAPS? --Kkmurray (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment there is no clearly defined GAoP, but there certainly is a loosely defined one spanning roughly from Plank to the Atom bomb and I have seen the phrase used several times (see for example The Golden Age of Theoretical Physics, google will show you several other use of this phrase, always spanning from roughly plank to roughly the atom bomb). No solid opinion on whether to keep and expand or redirect to modern physics [rather than history of physics]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Headbomb. --Michael C. Price talk 17:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Headbomb makes a good point that there is a loose association of this term for the aforementioned time period. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am changing from "comment" to "delete", because there is no real "golden age of physics" just yet, although it may be loosely defined. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep. It appears there is coverage of this topic when using sources that name different time periods. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Headbomb's comment. If there is a loosely defined golden age, it can be briefly mentioned in some other history oriented article. DVdm (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, as Headbomb says, is somewhat loosely defined, but I think it is important, notable term, to warrant a distinct article. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't resist. Sorry.  I hope that my point is made, though.  Uncle G (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. per Nergaal/Headbomb. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment I think I can do a workable re-write of this article to match some sources. It appears "Golden age of physics" can fit different time periods, and stating that in the form of an article may be the best approach. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rework as Steve Quinn suggests--there seems to be potential.    DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 14 November 2010 (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.