Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology Time Scale

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Time Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Civilization Time Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. Original research? Google turns up answers.com (the first time I've ever seen it appear above the Wikipedia article). RobertG ♬ talk 15:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Should Civilization Time Scale and Category:Civilization Time Scale also get the axe? Same author, same lack of references or substantiation. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 17:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, I'm adding Civilization Time Scale above. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Such scales exist in history of technology books, science museums, and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, which has one covering a large wall, but none are referenced in this original research article, so a good article could someday be created referencing such documented scales.Edison 17:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is absolute rubbish. Firstly, it hardly makes sense. Secondly, the few parts that do make sense are perverse and open to serious dispute (e.g. a technology timescale should start from the dawn of technology, not arbitrarily from the Industrial Revolution - a period in hisory and not a point in time in any case.) Emeraude 23:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete as per Edison & Emeraude. Compiling a time scale is not necessarily OR, and these two articles are just attempts at forming categories and links. But they are very poor attempts. DGG 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inadequately referenced, and, I suspect, OR. WMMartin 22:22, 5 December 2006 (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.