Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of physics concepts in primary and secondary education curricula


 * 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)  TheSpecialUser TSU 01:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

List of physics concepts in primary and secondary education curricula

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I dont understand how this is appropriate here. its really just a list of physics concepts, without any context or definition. the basic ones will always be covered in any physic class. the title doesnt fit right, as there is no way some of these ideas are covered at the primary school level. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The proposer's rationales can be paraphrased as "It's just a list" and "the name is wrong", neither of which are criteria for deletion. Not only are stand-alone lists a basic type of Wikipedia article with their own Manual of Style page and even WikiProject, but this list clearly satisfies the notability criteria for stand-alone lists: It is discussed by several citations. Its contents are to be found in the Science content standards for California public schools : kindergarten through grade twelve as well as the table of contents of five textbooks designed for this level. It might be appropriate to change the name, but that is a matter for the article's talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The topic is important, although there is much room for improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep, the topic is obviously notable, even if it needs lots of overhaul (e.g. should be divided by nationality at least). -- Cycl o pia talk  18:47, 12 November 2012 (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.