Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HyperPhysics


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Kpg  jhp  jm  07:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

HyperPhysics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable educational website. The few secondary sources are either directory listings or simply lesson plans which include material from here. I can find no significant discussion about the site itself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;Who am I to judge about (non-)notability of this site?-especially, since being much too disinterested in WP's deletion behavior (besides the draft-hunt, it's rather the keeping that annoys me sometimes) to search for suitable rules and their state of satisfaction. Anyhow, if this gets deleted, I would cite another WP-editor:"That's why we can't have any nice things!" HyperPhysics is to me a "standard", when looking for some nice animation. Purgy (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Was there any actual policy-based rationale to keep in that rambling, incoherent mess other than WP:ILIKEIT? And as far as judging notability, if you feel unqualified to do so, then you shouldn't be participating in an AfD discussion, because that's exactly what they're for and what's expected of the participants.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I intended to trigger concordant !votes, I expect that any closer will be able to correctly judge my !vote, I did not expect that I would trigger such an amount of toxic deprecation. Purgy (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:WEBCRIT. The website won the Merlot Classic Award for 2005 in Physics. Also, PSIgate (back when it was still a thing) thought HyperPhysics to be notable enough for inclusion (PSIgate was the physical sciences hub of the RDN, a Jisc-funded initiative). I found some sources that discuss the website itself:, and more briefly:  . The book The Geek Atlas and the textbook Physics Project Lab also briefly mention the website. Lots of popsci articles out there bring up the website by either citing it or suggesting it as further reading, so it's a pretty well-known website. Ahiijny (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a good bit to respond to here, so bear with me. As for the award, I can't see that it qualifies as "major", and even if it did, that's secondary to sourcing issues.  The PSIgate (link 1) indexing is irrelevant (apparently it's not even a thing anymore).  Most important is if there exist multiple, in-depth, reliable sources about the site.  Links 3 and 4 are utterly trivial mentions and don't contribute to notability or sourceability.  The book mentions are equally trivial and don't discuss the site in any kind of depth.  That just leaves link #2.  This one is probably okay, barely.  But that's just just one borderline source, and there just isn't enough here for an article.  That's really what it comes down to, not how popular or useful the site is.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep one of the most well-known physics sites out there, with loads of acknowledgements and recognition (see, bottom of the page). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If it were obvious, I wouldn't have started an AfD. You're being a bit disingenuous with "loads of awards and recognition" too.  And like I mentioned above, no matter how amazing the site is, if there don't exist sufficient sources to write an article about it, then none of that matters.  (See there for more detail).  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. as per Ahijny and HeadbombMaoGo (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. To reiterate some of what I said in replies above, what this really comes down to is sourcing.  Brief mentions of the "here's a great site with a bunch of material about physics" sort are irrelevant.  Real in-depth sourcing just isn't there (but hey, if someone can find more, then great).  Discounting all that, all that's been brought up is one barely reasonable source (which isn't even used in the article currently), and that's not enough.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It's covered in the physics-education trade literature to a sufficient extent that notability is established and the current article could be expanded. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2018 (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.