Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Newton's tooth


 * 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 merge. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Isaac Newton&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The entire content of this stub can easily be included in the main article on Newton, and as there don't seem to be any sources beyond the New York Times article cited, it won't be possible to write a more substantial article. Cal Engime (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Isaac Newton. Ansh666 02:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought, maybe just delete, WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. I don't know, need more people to pitch in to decide. Ansh666 03:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Isaac Newton. Maybe worth mentioning but certainly not notable enough for its own article. J I P  &#124; Talk 04:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. After nearly 300 years, all than can be said of it is that it was sold for a tidy sum in 1816. No details, e.g. authenticating it even came from Ike's noggin. Next up: Lock of Elvis Presley's hair. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sufficiently notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge I don't think anyone can claim this is independently notable, but it's worth a line in Newton's article as illustrating his historical importance in the 19th century. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, specifically in preference to merge - this is too trivial to mention. -- stillnotelf   is invisible  19:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If there's a whole article on Albert Einstein's brain, surely Newton's tooth deserves a line somewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Einstein was notable because of his brain - because of the amazing science he produced using it, and because later scientists seriously examined his brain to see what made him able to think the way he did. If Newton's gravity story had to do with a tooth falling out, instead of an apple falling from a tree, the tooth would matter.  I guess you could make an argument that it's significant as a relic in the religious sense, but there aren't enough sources to support that.  Either way, it's no big deal, I won't sweat whatever decision the closer makes.  Your argument that it deserves mention to prove he was already considered important in the 19th century is a sound one, I just don't think it's a strong one.  --  stillnotelf   is invisible  16:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On another note, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason in a deletion debate. Ansh666 19:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an utterly trivial thing and not worth having an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2013 (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.