171:- Well, the nominator did say, "The term is not frequently used in sociological debates over science," perhaps implying non-notability, but the sources already provided and a subsequent brief search show that it's cited in some legitimate articles. It certainly isn't a neologism or anything. Content concerns should be covered on the talk pages, as mentioned above.
235:
cause for deleting the whole article, which seems a rather excessive reaction. It can be improved and I am happy to have a bash at doing precisely that, including deleting anything that seems unjustified or unsubstantiated. I happen to have more material that can be incorporated into the article,
155:. This is about deletion, and you haven't cited a valid reason to delete the concept, except "I don't like it." Concerns need to be brought up on the talk page, or you can work on the article to bring it to a higher standard. --
120:
The term "scientific imperialism" is not frequently used in sociological debates over science. Furthermore, the text of the article is quite messily POV, and cites many references that do not support its thesis.
202:
236:
which I have not yet had time to work on. If it is acceptable to others, then I propose to implement these changes and then, dialogue permitting, see how it goes. thanks
113:
86:
81:
90:
73:
156:
217:
17:
186:
240:
222:
193:
159:
141:
125:
77:
55:
255:
36:
254:
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
237:
134:
69:
61:
213:
231:
Whilst I accept that the article is not perfect, BUT I do not think the concerns expressed comprise a
122:
172:
52:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
209:
179:
138:
107:
248:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
103:
99:
95:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
258:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
153:Keep and bring up concerns on the talk page
201:Apparently it's an encyclopedic expression
207:but the article should be improved.--
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
157:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
275:
241:10:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
223:19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
194:19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
160:17:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
142:15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
126:13:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
56:07:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
251:Please do not modify it.
133:This AfD nomination was
32:Please do not modify it.
70:Scientific imperialism
62:Scientific imperialism
137:. It is listed now.
266:
253:
221:
191:
190:
184:
183:
177:
176:
111:
93:
48:
34:
274:
273:
269:
268:
267:
265:
264:
263:
262:
256:deletion review
249:
208:
188:
187:
181:
180:
174:
173:
84:
68:
65:
46:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
272:
270:
261:
260:
244:
243:
205:
204:
196:
165:
164:
163:
162:
147:
146:
145:
144:
118:
117:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
271:
259:
257:
252:
246:
245:
242:
239:
238:Peter morrell
234:
230:
227:
226:
225:
224:
219:
215:
211:
203:
200:
197:
195:
192:
185:
178:
170:
167:
166:
161:
158:
154:
151:
150:
149:
148:
143:
140:
136:
132:
131:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
53:Mailer Diablo
50:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
250:
247:
232:
228:
206:
198:
168:
152:
119:
45:
43:
31:
28:
210:Sa.vakilian
233:sufficient
135:incomplete
123:Skinwalker
182:Zahakiel
114:View log
139:DumbBOT
87:protect
82:history
91:delete
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
229:Keep
199:Keep
169:Keep
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
51:. -
112:– (
49:eep
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
220:)
218:c
216:-
214:t
212:(
189:►
175:◄
116:)
110:)
72:(
47:k
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.