Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudoscience (physics) (2nd nomination)

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 and redirect to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Physics. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience (physics)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was restored per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_29#Pseudoscience_(physics) and I bring it to AfD for a full discussion. The article was originally at Pseudophysics but boldly moved to the current title, then a requested move discussion had weak consensus against moving it back and the closer felt a separate discussion was in order. The article was then boldly blanked and redirected to pseudoscience, then nominated for AfD, then sent to RfD because it was already a redirect. It is now properly back at AfD to consider keeping the original article, deletion, or redirecting. There was some concern about the pseudoscience article being a good redirect target; one possibility mentioned at the RfD was List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Physics. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. There is nothing in this article which goes beyond what is covered in the Pseudoscience article. There is no need to create a different article for each field of science. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who brought up List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Physics at RfD. I think this is unsuitable for redirection to Pseudoscience right now since there's no explicit coverage of pseudoscience in physics specifically, and only a few scattered mentions of physics at all. However, with only three topics given at the list section, there perhaps isn't a great deal of utility to readers to my suggestion either. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other items on that page which would qualify as physics, even though they're not in the "physics" subsection (the subsection above that includes some perpetual-motion claims, for example). XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original nominator, then maybe redirect to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Physics. This was initially about a made-up neologism "Pseudophysics", then unilaterally redirected following a failed RM when an AfD was requested. No wonder RfD resolved to send to AfD after the last nonimation was procedurally closed. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:59, 16 May 2021 (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.