Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiquark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ugen64 20:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One-sentence "article" on uninteresting sciencecruft. Merge with quark and bah-leet. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 21:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A common term in Particle physics. Details indeed should be in Quark. This should be a brief article about a term or (at least) a redirect. May even be found in science sections of major papers. Recently used in Science Section of the New York Times. Quote: "... a reduced amount of charmonium -- a particle that consists of a charm quark paired with an anticharm antiquark -- would be emitted in the presence of a quark-gluon plasma.". (See full text of "At One Trillion Degrees, Even Gold Turns Into the Sloshiest Liquid, The New York Times, April 19, 2005 Tuesday, Late Edition - Final, Section F; Column 1; Science Desk; Pg. 3, 803 words, By KENNETH CHANG")
- Keep. Not interesting to you or me but verifiable. It badly needs expansion but not by me. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, plenty of other articles are nominated for deletion with the reason that they aren't "interesting", and plenty of people agree... Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 22:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of people are not interested in, say, History of Fiji (no offence, just an example). Doesn't mean it is a VfD candidate for obvious reasons. The fact that most people have a better clue about what's important or not in humanities than in science doesn't make science subjects less encyclopedic. Of course there may be crackpot articles that claim to be about science that are perfect for VfD. So would be articles about really narrow scientific topics. Antiquark is not one of them. Irpen
- Well, plenty of other articles are nominated for deletion with the reason that they aren't "interesting", and plenty of people agree... Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 22:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand. If that is not possible, then redirect to quark. Eric119 22:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to quark. There is probably no reason for it to exist a separate article outside the quark article. Nominator's comments display a profound ignorance of particle physics. -- Decumanus 00:22, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- Who cares if I don't know anything about particle physics? I don't think this article is interesting, which means it should be deleted, just like all the school and Pokemon and "fancruft" articles should be deleted because their nominators think THEY aren't interesting. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 00:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As I suspected, you nominated this because you have a chip on your shoulder about Pokemon articles being called "fancruft." Trying to make a point with a physics related article is a pretty ridiculous move on your part, and displays an amazing lack of maturity (reflected in your vainglorious user signature as well). -- Decumanus 00:29, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- I fail to see how it's ridiculous. I think an article is useless, someone else thinks another article is useless, what's the difference? Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 00:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fail" is good word for your behavior. -- Decumanus 00:51, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- OH WOW YOU ARE SO IMPRESSIVE I BOW TO YOUR MIGHTY PENIS. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 00:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful now. I'd hate to see you get so profane. Personally, I don't mind your barbs, but there are others who prefer a modicum of civility in these discussions. -- Decumanus 00:59, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- Obviously, though, civility is not a requirement, or else usage of the debasing word "cruft" would not be allowed. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 01:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful now. I'd hate to see you get so profane. Personally, I don't mind your barbs, but there are others who prefer a modicum of civility in these discussions. -- Decumanus 00:59, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- OH WOW YOU ARE SO IMPRESSIVE I BOW TO YOUR MIGHTY PENIS. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 00:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fail" is good word for your behavior. -- Decumanus 00:51, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- I fail to see how it's ridiculous. I think an article is useless, someone else thinks another article is useless, what's the difference? Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 00:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As I suspected, you nominated this because you have a chip on your shoulder about Pokemon articles being called "fancruft." Trying to make a point with a physics related article is a pretty ridiculous move on your part, and displays an amazing lack of maturity (reflected in your vainglorious user signature as well). -- Decumanus 00:29, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- Who cares if I don't know anything about particle physics? I don't think this article is interesting, which means it should be deleted, just like all the school and Pokemon and "fancruft" articles should be deleted because their nominators think THEY aren't interesting. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 00:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand or redirect to quark. - Etacar11 00:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. I have added a sentence about what happens when a quark and antiquark meet but I'm sure we have some people from a scientific background who can add more than that. Capitalistroadster 01:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That happens for all antimatter. It's hardly specific to quarks and antiquarks. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. The debate rages on! 01:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement added to the article has somewhat of an ambiguous meaning in the context of quarks because they don't "meet" in the sense implied. Free quarks are not observed to exist in nature, but are theorized to be bound in combinations within hadrons. The phenomenon of of creation/annihilation of free quark pairs would, at this time, be extremely speculative. It has validity within the context of QCD scattering theory, but it needs to be put into better context. -- Decumanus 01:24, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- That happens for all antimatter. It's hardly specific to quarks and antiquarks. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. The debate rages on! 01:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to quark --mav 02:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:POINT. (And no, I don't care if WP:POINT is policy, semi-policy, or ultra-policy.) Ketsuban, if Poké-cruft is your concern, you'd be better off contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia:Poképrosal rather than disrupting VfD. AиDя01DTALK 03:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- It's not just "Pokecruft", it's also "schoolcruft" and all the other 'cruft that people feel is deleteable just because you can put the suffix "cruft" on it. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 03:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So you'd rather be disruptive than contribute constructively to policy discussions? (There's one for the school issue, too.) AиDя01DTALK 04:56, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- It's not just "Pokecruft", it's also "schoolcruft" and all the other 'cruft that people feel is deleteable just because you can put the suffix "cruft" on it. Ketsuban has spoken. The debate is over. 03:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Redirect or separate, I don't know. But keep. DJ Clayworth 04:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to quark, for now. (The article has very little content.) If in the future the antiquark section of quark grows to be unmanageable then split it back out. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Three Quarks for Muster Mark. Klonimus 06:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. This term is common enough in popular science and physics. Megan1967 06:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect until such time as quark becomes over-fat, at which time split off again. --Simon Cursitor 06:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with quark. The two concepts are intimately related. Radiant_* 07:57, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - if a one-line article got this much debate, then it must be worth keeping. Add stub tag. Internodeuser 13:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The second sentence is misleading, and there's far more content about anti-quarks already in quark, where lots of accompanying context is keeping it warm. Redirect to quark. Uncle G 14:26, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
- Redirect for now. Bambaiah 06:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge & redirect for now, though re-splitting and expansion will probably be necessary at some point. James F. (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & redirect (with quark). --Macrakis 02:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment only: in my opnion, this is not so much an attempt to be disruptive as it is an attempt to argue a point. (There are many ways to debate. Some people find certain ones more effective.) Given that there appears to be no current general discussion about how to deal with cruft in the context of VFD, I suggest that we start one. - 刘 (劉) 振霖 15:19, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I think you are missing the point. Fair enough, she is getting worked up over the cruft. I think that cruft is a stupid reason to delete an article. But just look at this article: It is one sentence! How can that be considered an interesting article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or something like that. Since no one has expanded it, Delete! Sonic Mew 19:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. If there is a sensible, non-confusing redirect possible, that's usually a better solution because it tends to limit the recreation of pointless substubs. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Quark, create redirect to Quark BlankVerse ∅ 13:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with and/or Redirect to Quark, there just doesn't seem to be much that is encyclopedic to say about antiquarks as of 2005, I'm sure that may change one day – quite possibly to "Antiquarks were a quaint artifact of the Standard Model". — pcrtalk 22:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.