Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physicist


 * 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 of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Physicist
We already have articles on physics, astrophysicist, particle physics, nuclear physics, etc. In addition we have a list of physicists, Nobel Prize in Physics, etc. I can't see any reason for the existence of this additional article. Alison Chaiken 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect this information is redundant given the other pages (e.g. physics, list of physicists) and so on. Reidrect to either of the two I just mentioned, or a more appropriate one if somebody can think of one. Jammo (SM247) 05:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Physics, as the article discusses the various strands that make up physics research more than what it means to be a physicist.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   08:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article is kept it definitely needs to be cleaned up in order to discuss the role of the physicist rather than the disciplines in which physicists operate.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   11:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that if we keep the article, editors should turn it into more of a discussion of the role of physicists in science and in larger society, not just a laundry list of types of research that physicists do. Alison Chaiken 16:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. We have lots of articles on lots of different professions.  I don't see why we shouldn't also have one on physicists, which is after all a rather exciting profession, of some interest to the general public. -lethe talk [ +] 09:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and let it develop. Engineer does not redirect to engineering, architect to architecture or physician to medicine. (damn edit conflicts!) -- Kjkolb 09:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. We generally have articles like Pharmacist, Engineer and Physician. These articles talk about the practical side of the career, not just about the subject. Definitely a fair enough nomination though. DarthVad e r 10:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. I think the article should both discuss the role of the physicist and the professional contexts in which they operate, just like Chemist and Mathematician. --Lambiam Talk 11:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. BoojiBoy 13:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. This is an important subject in itself (so speaks someone who calls himself that!), and the page could easily be developed into a more detailed discussion of the types of physicist and what they do.  Why should we have Engineer, Chemist and Mathematician, but not Physicist?--MichaelMaggs 16:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and hope some one will expand it - there should probably be several more subheadings. Peterkingiron 17:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to physics. Basically what this page is saying is that physicists study physics. --Danielrocks123 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly not redundant, very different from Physics --WinHunter (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per aeropagitica and Danielrocks123. I would also support the same being done to Chemist.  Tevildo 21:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it does just say that "physicists study physics", then it should not. It should describe more about how physicists are organised, their professional organisations etc. They are already linked in part. --Bduke 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Physics is to do with the nature of the universe &mdash; it is important. Cedars 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there's already an article on Astrophysicist, it could be merged into Physicist, along with other X-physicist, if there's some strong reason, but there's no problem having separate articles, as far as I can see. A physicist is a person, and physics is a science. They're not the same, and they deserve separate articles, so it's natural that Wikipedia would have them in separate articles. The article on the person can discuss education, career, noteworthy individuals etc. The article on the science can concentrate on science. Fg2 14:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite along the lines of other professions' articles. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 15:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. With Physics. Aint 15:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that it's an article in need of improvement, but the idea that an article on a not insubstantial subject, lacking now in quality and coverage, should be deleted or merged away is the wrong way of handling it.  It needs more text not less text ( to the point of no text... :) ).  DAG 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; The profession is of interest as well as the subject of physics. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep there is clealy room for a seperate article here even it it still needs work. I would recomend a merge with List of physicists except for length.  Eluchil404 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the proffession is notable in its own right. Jumbo Snails 20:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete agreed. 72.144.68.113 21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but severely trim: No need of discussions of branches of physics themselves. (started doing it) `'mikka (t) 22:31, 21 June 2006 (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.