Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of physics articles (!$@): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Mark viking (talk | contribs) →Index of physics articles (!$@): Keep, unclear what the grounds are for deletion for this specific set of index articles. |
Clarityfiend (talk | contribs) →Index of physics articles (!$@): comment |
||
Line 40:
* '''Keep All''' - While I wouldn't advocate anyone commit the massive amount of time necessary to create and maintain such an apparatus, it is clear that this is very well done and fulfills a valid navigational function, which is the key thing. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 21:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or possibly meld into one [[Index of physics articles]] article. Indices of science-related articles on Wikipedia are numerous; [[:Category:Indexes_of_science_articles]] lists 37 of them. Why pick on physics? If it is because the index is broken into separate articles, we could meld them into one. If it is not the physics index articles in particular, but indices in general that you think are useless, then this is something to bring up on a policy forum, not AfD. As a side note, there is no AfD notice on the 'A' page. --[[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]] ([[User talk:Mark viking|talk]]) 22:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
*'''Undecided'''. As they stand now, the lists don't do anything better than categories. There are also several problems just from a cursory examination. Physicists don't need to be included individually when there is already a [[List of physicists]], and they definitely shouldn't be ordered by first name. Also, articles like [[zinc sulfide]] and [[zirconium alloy]] really belong in the [[Index of chemistry articles]] (which also lists scientists by first name). [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
| |||