- 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 keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Axial pen force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
not notable, doesn't make sense Rracecarr 07:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 07:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but move to Pen pressure. The definition makes sense to me -- it's just the force that a user exerts parallel to the pen. I'd be interested in seeing a graphonomics textbook or something. Google does not return many hits, but this is a small field. --N Shar 18:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've clarified the definition; it was badly written but the sources make it clear what the correct definition should be. --N Shar 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is trivial (at best, include as one or two lines in another article). Turgidson 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have added some sources to the article (as "External links", but they can later be incorporated). -- Black Falcon 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated this page for deletion, so not sure if I should vote. However, one the main reasons I thought it should go was that the definition was incomprehensible. That has been taken care of. It does seem like this content could be included in the graphonomics article though. Rracecarr 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and congratulating the nominator for a sensible first decision and a sensible second one. DGG 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep for now, but urge contributor(s) to reword first paragraph to provide easily-understood context to the unfamiliar reader, and to provide a diagram or something to explain what it is saying. (even something homemade using MSpaint would be better than no illustration). Jerry lavoie 01:48, 20 February 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.