Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science and technology: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
ZimZalaBim (talk | contribs) →[[Science and technology]]: comment reply |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''no consensus''' to delete established. [[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 14:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
===[[Science and technology]]===
Redundant, articles already exist seperately on [[science]] and [[technology]]. In fact most of this page's text is lifted from those two articles. (this was a speedy nomination, which I changed to AfD; there is also a related discussion on [[Talk:Science and technology]] [[User:ZimZalaBim|ZimZalaBim]] ([[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]]) 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 7 ⟶ 15:
:::'''Comment''' That's why I think the scope of the article should be changed to reflect this relationship, rather than delete the article altogether. Technological and scientific progress go hand in hand, and there are a lot of academic works, historical or sociological, explaning the historic relationship between the development of both.--[[User:Lobizón|Lobizón]] 12:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::::'''Comment''' Which is why we properly have articles on the academic disciplines studying these two terms: [[science and technology studies]] & [[history of science and technology]]. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|ZimZalaBim]] ([[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]]) 12:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', purely redundant. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<
*'''Delete''' These concepts should '''(and are)''' discussed in two seperate articles. This article is not needed. <b>[[User:BrendelSignature|<
*'''Keep''' for now. I think we need to be carefull here and it might be best to see how the article develops for a while. As is pointed out on the talk page the term "Science and Technology" is used frequently as in "S & T Studies", "History of S & T" etc. This make it a likely search term on WP. It is not just the sum of what is on two different articles. I would much prefer to have time to argue this out on the talk page rather than at AfD. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' (also for now). The article is not to explain the term "science" and the term "technology." It is for the term "science and technology" which takes on a meaning other than the sum of its two parts. I am the first to admit that the article in its current state is weak. However, I am not the right person to write the final article and it was my intent to put a clean-up tag on the article but I did not move fast enough and the speedy delete tag was up before I found my tag. It may turn out that nobody is able to bring this up to the desired standard, but at least give the article a couple of months to show where it can go. Cheers -- [[User:MCG|MCG]] 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''delete''' the article does not establish any insight of merit that is not found in the primary and secondary articles on science and technology already. This is not to say that it couldn't do that, but that it does not right now. --[[User:Buridan|Buridan]] 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' If there is merit, why delete it as opposed to fix it? It has been pointed out that there are several articles incorporating this term (which is more than its two parts). Additionally there are categories that do this as well; in a quick search I can find [[:Category:Science and technology by country]] (and this is full of many other sub categories of science and technology) and [[:Category:Science and technology studies]]. If you delete the article Science and technology, it will eventually be re-created. Why not deal with the content of the article now instead of later? -- [[User:MCG|MCG]] 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' Main article has been trimmed significantly to essentially stub-status. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|ZimZalaBim]] ([[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]]) 15:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' The question of alternative approaches and the benefit of [[incrementalism]] and "breakthrough" aka "spontaneous innovation", is quite an important subject in engineering and science. It is a bit like having an article on the trinity for religion in some ways they are considered the same thing, but in other ways they are very different. The term is used frequently enough to make it a potential article - so why not slap an { { undercontruction} } tag on it?--[[User:Haseler|Mike]] 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' But please add a scholarly source for the claim that there is more to the Gestalt "Science and Technology" than to the conjunction of "Science" and "Technology." Otherwise, even though I believe the claim in the introduction, this looks somewhat like original research. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' It's a bit sad that this article is all we have to say on the subject of Science and Technology in the general sense. Surely there can be more flesh added to these bones along with some nice cites? [[User:Robovski|Robovski]] 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
::yep... it is sad.. but that is why there are around 40 other articles covering this material. this article at best should be a category at best, and you know what... it already is.... so this article is moot. --[[User:Buridan|Buridan]] 02:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''' But it is not already a category. [[:Category:Science and technology]] -- [[User:MCG|MCG]] 03:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||