The result was No consensus. From the discussion here it looks like there is some serious skepticism that this can be made into a viable article, but enough people willing to give it some more time to be worked into an encyclopedic article to stay the delete button for now. The current article is already clearly further developed than the previously deleted article. I suspect this article will be back on AfD in the relatively near future if it doesn't progress soon, but for now it gets to stay. — Doug Bell talk 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is marked in-use, but now it got prodded, deprodded by creator, then reprodded, so here we are in AfD. The two prods were "Unmaintainable. What constitutes a "physics" formula? What are the variables used the formulas below? What's their significance? This is just an indiscriminate list. Wikipedia is not a crib sheet for a physics exam." and "How can this ever contain every physics formulae?". I concur: delete as indiscriminate list with no real unifying topic and no context. DMacks 03:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
it discriminates very carefully: to be an entry in the list, an item must be a physics formula. — That argument is clearly based upon the false premise that there are only a few formulae in physics. That is untrue. There is a large number of such formulae, and many of them have nothing in common apart from being "in physics". "In physics" is almost as indiscriminate a criterion as "written down".
A discriminate criterion would be topic specific. But then the formulae would be (and, indeed, for many topics already are) in the encyclopedia article related to that topic. Uncle G 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. From the discussion here it looks like there is some serious skepticism that this can be made into a viable article, but enough people willing to give it some more time to be worked into an encyclopedic article to stay the delete button for now. The current article is already clearly further developed than the previously deleted article. I suspect this article will be back on AfD in the relatively near future if it doesn't progress soon, but for now it gets to stay. — Doug Bell talk 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is marked in-use, but now it got prodded, deprodded by creator, then reprodded, so here we are in AfD. The two prods were "Unmaintainable. What constitutes a "physics" formula? What are the variables used the formulas below? What's their significance? This is just an indiscriminate list. Wikipedia is not a crib sheet for a physics exam." and "How can this ever contain every physics formulae?". I concur: delete as indiscriminate list with no real unifying topic and no context. DMacks 03:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
it discriminates very carefully: to be an entry in the list, an item must be a physics formula. — That argument is clearly based upon the false premise that there are only a few formulae in physics. That is untrue. There is a large number of such formulae, and many of them have nothing in common apart from being "in physics". "In physics" is almost as indiscriminate a criterion as "written down".
A discriminate criterion would be topic specific. But then the formulae would be (and, indeed, for many topics already are) in the encyclopedia article related to that topic. Uncle G 18:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply