Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep. Carlossuarez46 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The topic would be better served by just a disambiguation page. As it is, the article is just a bit of etymology (that should probably be shunted to Wiktionary) and a few links to other pages. Given that "chaos" has been used in so many contexts and with so many meanings, it seems impossible to unify the subject without doing OR. Jordansc 17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So just move it to the disambig. page with a redirect, preferably after some discussion on the talk page. Not really an AfD issue, since you're not saying the article should be deleted. I agree with your comments about its content, though; there's nothing there that isn't already covered in more detail in the appropriate sections on math, physics, etc. ◄Zahakiel► 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; I would think that Chaos falls under Core articles, it is definately notable enough to be kept. The body of the artcle should be about philosophy, symbols, concepts, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidel333 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2 August 2007
- Keep per Zidel333, but slap Wikify tags on it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This page used to be a lot larger, but it seems someone was too overzealous in branching it out into sub-articles. I'm sure there's a few sections in the page history that can be salvaged. —Xezbeth 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no valid reason given for deletion. IPSOS (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per previous discussion, and Expand. -- KTC 04:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In support of Xezbeth. Xangel 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above, contra nom. Bearian 16:45, 6 August 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.