Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics (2nd nomination)


 * 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   speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor. See WP:AN.  Sandstein  18:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Physics
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

pseudoscientific nonsense which can't be tested or observed outside of its framework and therefore is non-notable per WP:FRINGE. - file lake  shoe  15:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This AfD can only be characterized as a user being disruptive. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * O RLY? postdlf (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not think April fools jokes would take the form of AfD nominations or additions in article space. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a science directory, or redirect to Physical (Olivia Newton-John song). postdlf (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with Conservapedia - stop liberal pseudo-science!  S Pat   talk 16:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Supposed WP:RS reviewed exclusively by supporters of fringe topic. Circular references to other fringe authors.  They even set up fake awards.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 1.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  16:37, 1 April 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.