Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial science
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep, with possible merge with pseudoscience moink 07:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unwilling to redirect this anywhere, and it's current content and likely any future content is rather mystical stuff between OR and POV. Obviously no redirect to science, and it doesn't claim to be protoscience or pseudoscience either, so no redirect to those nor to any of the hoaxes. I'm not sure the term has been "traditionally" used for anything. -Splash 22:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Expand As the first contributor of this article I find it odd that within minutes of beginning to sketch out it scope someone "helps" the process by suggesting the page be deleted. There is a certain body of writing on the construction of the term "controversial science," and the term itself is used a great deal by people with and without an overt POV. But that does in no way make the term itself controversial. I suggest to allow the article to develop and after a time come to a determination of whether or not it needs a redirect, and if so, to what other article. People familiar with this topic are likely to deem it anything BUT "mystical." Haiduc 22:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Expand Tend to agree with Splash re traditional use, but there's an article there I feel. Reich is one of many possible examples. Kuhnian revolutions might balso be relevant. Dlyons493 23:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any useful content into pseudoscience (all of the examples discussed in the article are actually pseudoscience), then redirect. There is no particular reason to have an entry to describe the concept of science that is merely controversial, anymore than we should have an entry to describe that concept of a, e.g., "controversial legal decision" or "controversial book". (The article does talk a little bit at the end about how science is labelled "controversial" when it is not, for political reasons, but this is just a rhetorical device.) Sdedeo 23:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an article about "examples of controversial science," which may or may not belong under pseudoscience, but about the term "Controversial science" itself, and its evolution and dynamics.Haiduc 00:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands, the article doesn't really persuade me that the term exists in the sense that it is discussed in, say, academic circles. Rather, it's just a somewhat blanket phrase dealing with any kind of science that someone disagreed with — and that's just about the entire field! -Splash 00:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an exploratory article in a still-embryonic stage. I think that an argument can be made that this term has a life of its own, aside from what it describes, and that it is per se a worthy object of analysis. I may be proven wrong in the end but I do not think that a preemptory challenge to its exitence is either timely or useful at this moment. As it stands the argument may not persuade me either, but as material accumulates, and as others hopefuly contribute, a viable discourse may take shape. What's your rush? You tagged it literally minutes after I began to write.Haiduc 00:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands, the article doesn't really persuade me that the term exists in the sense that it is discussed in, say, academic circles. Rather, it's just a somewhat blanket phrase dealing with any kind of science that someone disagreed with — and that's just about the entire field! -Splash 00:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an article about "examples of controversial science," which may or may not belong under pseudoscience, but about the term "Controversial science" itself, and its evolution and dynamics.Haiduc 00:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. An "exploratory" article sounds a lot to me like original research. It reads like a slightly-POV first draft of pseudoscience.--Prosfilaes 02:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, what the article describes is more properly called pseudoscience. -- Kjkolb 07:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this article seem to cover pseudoscience, but with less neutrality, which is already covered well 15:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.