Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molecular Static
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Molecular Static (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Fictional concept with no secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 01:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Looks like similar articles have been deleted as well for lack of real-world context. This one is no different. -WarthogDemon 01:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as article title name is not merely fictional and has real world context beyond the show and has been covered in scholarly secondary sources. I'll do what I can to improve the article, but I'm going to have to drive home soon, so ... Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You realize, of course, Pumpkin King, that the sources you linked to (dealing with static molecular analyses) have nothing at all to do with the concept of "molecular static" treated in this article. Don't you? Deor 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and so I urge someone to use these sources, who knows more about science than I, to restructure the article accordingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD discussions aren't about the titles, they're about the articles. This article is about a concept from Charmed. If there's an actual scientific concept with the same name it could get an article. It shouldn't be written on top of this article. If this article is kept then it should be moved to Molecular Static (Charmed) and give the science article this spot. You can move this article there now if you wish. Moving this article won't affect this debate or the science article though. Jay32183 03:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and so I urge someone to use these sources, who knows more about science than I, to restructure the article accordingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You realize, of course, Pumpkin King, that the sources you linked to (dealing with static molecular analyses) have nothing at all to do with the concept of "molecular static" treated in this article. Don't you? Deor 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My head is exploding! Do I have to explain? MarkBul 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Deor 03:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems rather crufty and not notable outside of the TV show. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have a love/hate relationship with WP:FICT, but I have no reservation applying that guideline here. To Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!: this won't be salted, so we can always add the science stuff after the AfD. Ichormosquito 03:54, 1 October 2007 (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.