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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonic Oath[edit]

Proposed equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath for physicists. Totally non-notable. Probably being promoted by the inventor of the idea. (Isn't Newtonian the preferred adjective anyway?) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the talk page the page creator states:

This is being discussed in physics forums so it has some notability or it may gain some.

Note the last clause, or may gain some. Wikipedia should reflect notability, not create it. And contributors to the cited physics forum are not taking the proposed oath seriously; some believe it is a joke. Kablammo (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the oath is not notable, so it should be deleted. I (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For "is being discussed in physics forums", read "is being laughed at on physicsforums.com". See the text of the oath for further clarification that it's a joke. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the notability page. I agree that it does not meet the criteria of notability. I think the thing is still under development. So it must be deleted. Zeyn1 (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The one reference never uses the term Newtonic Oath, so this looks like OR. See also WP:NEO. --Blanchardb (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Zetawoof, make that an even stronger delete. Maybe even a speedy. --Blanchardb (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think this idea of a Newtonic Oath has been around for at least 40-50 years, and as a in one form or another. Didn't EE Doc Smith describe this a oath in the same cadence of the Hippocratic Oath for engineers in one of this books. I think the article should be rewritten, expanded and sourced added. scope_creep (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But right now there's nothing to salvage, and no one (yet) has undertaken to do that. Kablammo (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to expand, if I can.Zeyn1 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RMHED (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mikemill (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. Tim Ross·^talk 19:44, 21 November 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.