Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newton's flaming laser sword


 * 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. Users are welcome to redirect to Mike Alder, and if any of the content from this page is desired to merge there, drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Not notable; no third-party references exist. Melchoir (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a notable concept, but a coined term from a single essay.  --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Mike Alder, since the author is notable per WP:PROF even if this particular essay is not. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support the merge. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge sounds fine. In that case, I think the amount of material should be drastically reduced. Melchoir (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We aren't limited by space. No need to remove anything (except what merging would remove, since there is some redundancy between the lead and the main text). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}
 * True, but I'm more concerned with giving the wrong impression to the reader. It's unusual to devote multiple paragraphs of material to a summary of a single article that has attracted no commentary in the literature. A reader who doesn't closely inspect the footnotes might easily conclude that Newton's flaming laser sword is a more widely known concept than it really is. IMO this is the fundamental reason why Wikipedia should care about notability in the first place. Melchoir (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The solution is to expand Adler's article, to cover his other work, not reduce it to nothing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree. But this should be more than enough. Melchoir (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable: the term was coined in a single essay (in a popular magazine) which has no citations. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Merge if you really want to, but I wouldn't. The term has not caught on, period, probably because its silly. Maybe he should have called it "Newton's Razor" instead. If it fits into the Adler article, fine, as it represents an important thought, I guess. But if it doesn't fit, don't sweat it. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Mike Alder. Material that has been added there is already sufficient. Plausible search term.  Jujutacular  talk 04:50, 30 July 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.