224:
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.
253:
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).
175:. 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. --
111:
84:
79:
88:
17:
134:
71:
187:
I've clarified the definition; it was badly written but the sources make it clear what the correct definition should be. --
273:
36:
272:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
258:
245:
229:
217:
205:
191:
179:
159:
152:
141:
122:
53:
213:- I have added some sources to the article (as "External links", but they can later be incorporated). --
138:
75:
130:
48:
255:
214:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
239:
and congratulating the nominator for a sensible first decision and a sensible second one.
67:
59:
226:
202:
119:
172:
156:
105:
188:
176:
201:, this is trivial (at best, include as one or two lines in another article).
241:
266:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
101:
97:
93:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
276:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
135:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (science)
129:This discussion has been added as a
24:
118:not notable, doesn't make sense
1:
259:01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
246:01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
230:05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
218:20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
206:19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
192:04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
180:18:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
160:14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
142:07:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
123:07:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
54:02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
293:
133:to the proposed guideline
269:Please do not modify it.
151:This AfD nomination was
32:Please do not modify it.
155:. It is listed now.
144:
52:
284:
271:
128:
109:
91:
51:
34:
292:
291:
287:
286:
285:
283:
282:
281:
280:
274:deletion review
267:
139:trialsanderrors
82:
68:Axial pen force
66:
63:
60:Axial pen force
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
290:
288:
279:
278:
262:
261:
248:
233:
232:
221:
220:
208:
196:
195:
194:
165:
164:
163:
162:
146:
145:
116:
115:
62:
57:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
289:
277:
275:
270:
264:
263:
260:
257:
252:
249:
247:
244:
243:
238:
235:
234:
231:
228:
223:
222:
219:
216:
212:
209:
207:
204:
200:
197:
193:
190:
186:
183:
182:
181:
178:
174:
170:
167:
166:
161:
158:
154:
150:
149:
148:
147:
143:
140:
136:
132:
127:
126:
125:
124:
121:
113:
107:
103:
99:
95:
90:
86:
81:
77:
73:
69:
65:
64:
61:
58:
56:
55:
50:
49:Seraphimblade
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
268:
265:
256:Jerry lavoie
250:
240:
236:
215:Black Falcon
210:
198:
184:
173:Pen pressure
171:but move to
168:
117:
45:
43:
31:
28:
153:incomplete
227:Rracecarr
203:Turgidson
131:test case
120:Rracecarr
185:Comment.
112:View log
157:DumbBOT
85:protect
80:history
199:Delete
189:N Shar
177:N Shar
89:delete
106:views
98:watch
94:links
46:keep.
16:<
251:keep
237:keep
211:Keep
169:Keep
137:. ~
102:logs
76:talk
72:edit
242:DGG
110:– (
104:|
100:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
78:|
74:|
114:)
108:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.