Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics envy

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 DELETE. Sorry, but the article itself is just so poor that keepers don't make nearly enough of a case. -Splash^talk 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Physics envy

Article apparently about one person's POV. We already have articles about "hard science" vs. "soft science".

• Delete. Gazpacho 11:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism, original research. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 11:41Z

BTW, mathematician response to physics envy:

• The biologist wants to be a chemist.
• The chemist wants to be a physicist.
• The physicist wants to be God.
• God wants to be a mathematician.

—Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-20 11:42Z

• Delete per Quarl --BadSeed 01:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this term is frequently used to describe problems in the social sciences and biology through trying to be like physics. It needs more work, but give it time to see whether more work is done. Bduke 04:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think this falls under the neologism category--it's a common enough phrase, I think, if not among the general public then definitely in academia. A quick search of some academic and science blogs indicate this. On the other hand, I don't see how much more could be added to the article; maybe putting its information into another article would be ideal? --Pharazin
• Delete as POV commentary. Crunch 22:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Crunch. --Perfecto 06:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- this is a term definitely actively used in academic corridor conversations (though I think I've probably heard it applied to sociology a lot more than to biology). AnonMoos

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.