Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of Science - Knowledge

Source 📝

219:. Why delete? I think it makes perfect sense to have the criticism section of the science article break into its own article. It was getting to bulky for the main science page anyway. It should be able to break off and expand into its own article- Its a decent enough subject, sources are reliable, their all from the original science article, and im adding more critiqes to the other sections as I type this, so whats the deal? Just because science is a large topic it shouldnt have a criticism page? With that logic why does it have its own article to begin with. (Update) Knowledge has articles dedicated to topics like subgenres of punk music- which a very large topic as well when you dig deep enough, but it broke off from the punk page and became its own article. If wiki can allow that, but not critiques of science, thats a bit of a dissapointment 160: 253:. The nominator has not given a good reason for deletion. This article has forked out of a section that was growing too large. It is sourced. It is a legitimate topic for an article. -- 154: 115: 88: 83: 120: 92: 75: 175: 142: 191:
I don't think this belongs as a Knowledge article. It seems rather silly, taking into account how large of a topic science is.
17: 136: 290: 202: 314: 295: 268: 245: 228: 207: 57: 224: 79: 132: 329: 36: 328:
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
182: 241: 220: 71: 63: 310: 168: 148: 53: 237: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
285: 261: 197: 306: 49: 109: 280: 254: 192: 236:. Um, where does 'sillyness' come in on the wiki deletion policy page? 322:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
305:- Article is far from perfect, but the subject is notable. - 48:
The nominator changed his position. Non-admin closure. -
105: 101: 97: 167: 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 332:). No further edits should be made to this page. 181: 8: 7: 275:Ok, I see your point. It should be 24: 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1: 353: 315:03:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 296:03:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 269:02:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 246:02:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 229:02:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 208:02:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 58:04:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 325:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 72:Criticisms of Science 64:Criticisms of Science 344: 327: 293: 288: 283: 266: 259: 221:ProductofSociety 205: 200: 195: 186: 185: 171: 123: 113: 95: 34: 352: 351: 347: 346: 345: 343: 342: 341: 336: 330:deletion review 323: 291: 286: 281: 262: 255: 203: 198: 193: 128: 119: 86: 70: 67: 44:The result was 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 350: 348: 340: 339: 335: 334: 318: 317: 299: 298: 272: 271: 248: 231: 212: 189: 188: 125: 121:AfD statistics 66: 61: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 349: 338: 337: 333: 331: 326: 320: 319: 316: 312: 308: 304: 301: 300: 297: 294: 289: 284: 278: 274: 273: 270: 267: 265: 260: 258: 252: 249: 247: 243: 239: 238:Murderd2death 235: 232: 230: 226: 222: 218: 215: 214: 213: 210: 209: 206: 201: 196: 184: 180: 177: 174: 170: 166: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 141: 138: 134: 131: 130:Find sources: 126: 122: 117: 111: 107: 103: 99: 94: 90: 85: 81: 77: 73: 69: 68: 65: 62: 60: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 324: 321: 302: 276: 264:(Discussion) 263: 256: 250: 233: 216: 211: 190: 178: 172: 164: 157: 151: 145: 139: 129: 45: 43: 31: 28: 155:free images 307:RobertMel 50:RobertMel 116:View log 161:WP refs 149:scholar 89:protect 84:history 133:Google 93:delete 257:Bduke 176:JSTOR 137:books 110:views 102:watch 98:links 16:< 311:talk 303:Keep 277:kept 251:Keep 242:talk 234:Keep 225:talk 217:Keep 169:FENS 143:news 106:logs 80:talk 76:edit 54:talk 46:Keep 282:EMS 279:. — 194:EMS 183:TWL 118:• 114:– ( 313:) 244:) 227:) 163:) 108:| 104:| 100:| 96:| 91:| 87:| 82:| 78:| 56:) 309:( 292:4 287:2 240:( 223:( 204:4 199:2 187:) 179:· 173:· 165:· 158:· 152:· 146:· 140:· 135:( 127:( 124:) 112:) 74:( 52:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
deletion review
RobertMel
talk
04:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Criticisms of Science
Criticisms of Science
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
AfD statistics
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR
TWL
EMS
2
4

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.