Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Father Physics

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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Father Physics

Uncommon neologism [1]. See talk page for rationale given for removing prod. Note that many of the Google hits do not refer to this concept (Liberatore, 2006). 13:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:OR, cites the same source from a forum on both the article and the talk page (see WP:RS) and the rest is the editor's opinion. Yomangani 14:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reason above. --Cassavau 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I'm a little ambivalent. This is a weird usage. Didn't expect to find much on Goggle, and didn't find a lot; but when you google "father physics" you find there is indeed some usage (note the quotation marks). So on the WP:OR test. It does not introduces a theory or method of solution; It does not introduce original ideas (they can be found elsewhere); It does not define new terms (although it does define one I'd never heard before); It is not a new definition of pre-existing terms; It does not introduce an argument that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It does not introduce an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It attributes the neologism to a "reputable" source. Granted it is front end material; there is always danger that putting front end material into WIkipedia will give it momentum; but if we worry too much about that we'll put nothing in Wikipedia at all. I judge it passes WP:OR; and since I frequently come to Wikipedia to understand emerging pop culture, there is value to it. Williamborg (Bill) 22:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case the article is introducing a new idea (clearly covered by WP:NEO#Articles_on_neologisms) so must be supported by reputable primary or secondary sources. The source is not reputable under WP:RS since it is a web forum, and even if it was, it is a source for the usage of the term, not the accompanying opinion. Yomangani 23:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or... Merge. There are other Google hits for "Father Physics", even once you eliminate "father's physics lab/class/student/text/book", etc. And certainly more hits than for "Father Science" (though there was a "Father Science and Mother Art" :). There's even a soliloquy addressing the figure of Father Physics. But ... I just don't think it has near enough currency to have its own article. Moreover, nearly all the usages I found explicitly or implicitly link "Father Physics" with its mirror, "Mother Nature". I have to think that until there are enough usage/example references, apart from mere dicdef's, that this can be nothing more than a footnote to the Mother Nature article. I'd say add a mention there and redirect. Shenme 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being on a fourm doesn't make it notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.