Deletion of Particle

Comment: The nomination is a prime example of a bad idea, reckless, and a sign of why our Civilization is Eschatology|slouching towards Jerusalem.  Not only that, but it's in bad taste, as the article was just created earlier this month and a peek at the "history" tab would reveal that it was still under construction.  In any case, the |article has already been improved enough to keep.  "Particle" is a core idea in science and philosophy, and is incredibly well attested in thousands if not millions of |reliable sources.  The nominator could not have been |bothered with even a simple online search.  Such core ideas are also extremely necessary for our core readership, high school and college students.  WP:AfD is not the place to suggest fixes to |ugly articles. I can just see the headline in the tabloids: "Wikipedia eliminates particles; Climate change proven false
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:RS||WP:BEFORE||WP:UGLY)

Comment: This is a ''topic'', which should properly introduce the reader to all the forms and variations of what has been defined as "particle" by the various fields. A dab page does not cut it for a general reader, interested in the concept and potentially in certain subsets of the meaning. This is an overview page, a |work-in-progress towards an overview page that an encyclopaedia should have on a topic this broad, where a general reader may not even know how individual fields treat the term. —&nbsp;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:There is no deadline (WP:NODEADLINE)

Comment: This should not be a red link and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per |policy.  Sources such as ''http://books.google.com.au/books?id=qQZugqxWAkcC&pg=PA81 The Ashgate companion to contemporary philosophy of physics'' and ''http://books.google.com.au/books?id=EbOz5I9RNrYC Particle metaphysics'' seem adequate to demonstrate the notability of the concept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)