Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newton's fourth law

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. Tom e r ^talk 06:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's fourth law[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion, contested at WP:SD. Might as well put this through AfD. The two comments below are copied from WP:SD. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google show 652 hits. Keep. --Walter Görlitz 02:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those hits all seem unrelated to the content of the article; add a few more keywords (like "belief" or "annette") to the search and it gives zero hits. The article also contradicts the information at Isaac Newton. If anything, this page should in my opinion be a redirect to Newton's law of gravity, expect that we don't currently have a separate article on that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't mnake that redirect, because as observed below, Newton's 4th 'is not gravitation — it is not anything; it does not exist. Newton has three and only three laws. Unlucky for him, but we shouldn't imply he has a 4th. -Splash^talk 03:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See beyond the few hundred Google hits here. The term appears only to be used in humourous reference, and without any consistent reference (or any particular humour, but anyway). There appears to be a couple of hits enquiring why Newtons 4th isn't gravitation, but the answer is just "it isn't". I can't see the use of an article about a humorous, but meaningless idiom nor one about what the 4th law definitely isn't. It's not like Gravitation is often referred to as Newton's 4th, either, so let's not go there. If I must cite WP:NOT, then this would be NOT a slang or idiom guide, not a jokebook and not an indiscriminate collection of 'information'. Delete. -Splash^talk 03:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isaac Newton has three laws. Delete all others. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 03:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable. "Belief is all we have"+Newton produces no relevant Google hits. The article also doesn't say why it should be called his "fourth law", or who did so. Kusma (討論) 03:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:V.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, as Splash explained. PJM 03:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current article is about an unverifiable neologistic phrase; possible usages in humor are nn, and have nothing to do with this article.--MayerG 05:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be an unfunny joke; certainly it is not a physical law as proposed by Isaac Newton. (aeropagitica) 06:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, with crippled self-reference indicating its a hoax linas 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Term is used in a number of ways, but none of those are encyclopedic. Agree with Splash's comments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current content per nom and others. Just possibly... consider redirecting to Dean drive, a claimed "reactionless drive" much publicized by the editor of Astounding Science Fiction in the 1950s. Its apparent violation of the laws of physics was explained by the postulation of a "fourth law of motion." Of course, Newton didn't postulate such a law, so it couldn't have have been "Newton's fourth law," could it? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, it couldn't.--MayerG 14:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this hoax. Grandmasterka 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax Bad ideas 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously fake. --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as potentially harmful to physics. Well, not really. And I wouldn't even bother BJAODNing this, it's not even funny. Cyde Weys 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - joke. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:28, 3 February 2006 (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.