Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quasistatic equilibrium

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. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

original research JPotter 02:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; Looks like it has citations and links, fairly standard terminology. Am I missing something? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see it goes with Thermodynamic evolution, listed above. I can't address the technical merits of the article; the theory may be kooky, but it's linked and cited. It doesn't look like original research to me. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; not notable kooky theory (as opposed to notable kooky theories). --Pierremenard.
• Delete. Indeed, it has citations and links, fairly standard terminology. The problem is, these are mixed together is a clearcut example of original research. --DrTorstenHenning 14:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I removed the wacky citations; it now seems to be a reasonable first cut at defining a term that is widely used. linas 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per fix by User:Linas. --ScienceApologist 19:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since fixed. GangofOne 04:48, 20 December 2005 (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.