Deletion of Father Physics

Comment: Fails , cites the same source from a forum on both the article and the talk page (see ) and the rest is the editor's opinion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: mdash; I'm a little ambivalent. This is a weird usage. Didn't expect to find much on Goggle, and didn't find a lot; but when you google "father physics" you find there is indeed some usage (note the quotation marks).  So on the  test. It does not introduces a theory or method of solution; It does not introduce original ideas (they can be found elsewhere); It does not define new terms (although it does define one I'd never heard before); It is not a new definition of pre-existing terms; It does not introduce an argument that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It does not introduce an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It attributes the neologism to a Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms|"reputable" source. Granted it is front end material; there is always danger that putting front end material into WIkipedia will give it momentum; but if we worry too much about that we'll put nothing in Wikipedia at all. I judge it passes ; and since I frequently come to Wikipedia to understand emerging pop culture, there is value to it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)