294:. Basically what I'm getting after revamping the Science 2.0 article is this: Science 2.0 is a controversial (Knowledge-like) sharing model for scientific collaboration, with some proponents, some opposed -- it is continuing to be in a rapid transition; Science 2.0 (website) is a website along the lines of Science 2.0 (sharing, open, free exchange, akin to Knowledge somewhat) -- and it appears to be gaining credibility in that numerous sources (USA Today, Wall Street Journal etc -- see
256:. But, a google search does indicate that it is a valid term... sort of. I feel that the term "Science 2.0" is more of an idiomatic expression, where you can say "X 2.0" about anything when trying to make the larger point of using the internet to assist with an activity that didn't use it before... Car Buying 2.0, Commuting 2.0, Fapping 2.0... It's like saying "X is the new black."
273:. In my research I'm finding lots of notable sources for both the website and the topic and I am starting to get a handle about what each is about. I'll try to revamp both articles time permitting. Right now my best guess is the topics are notable, but just badly handled, and hopefully if they're done right users may vote to keep one or both topics. --
201:
which was originally about the concept of science 2.0 but which at times was being changed to be about the Ion
Publications website, etc called Science 2.0. Neither of these are very good articles and originally read, and still do to a large extent, as essays and original research. I can't find
355:
as per
Dougweller. A new page solves the wrong problem and the rationalization for it wasn't convincing. It also ended up creating two bad articles instead of fixing the one that exists to be a little clearer about the precepts of Science 2.0 and how they are embodied in various efforts.
394:
be written. However, there is not a single sentence of information in the article as it stands that is about the site, beyond the statement in the first sentence that it exists as one implementation. Everything else is about the general concept, which is notable.
166:
298:) put links to Science 2.0 website articles. It appears to be gaining respectability. Still, I don't know if Science 2.0 website should have its own article or whether people feel it can be included in the current
252:'The article isn't any good' is not a valid criterion for deletion, but I am leaning to delete. My issue with this article is that it may be a content fork, although I do agree with what you're saying about
160:
328:
121:
57:
126:
94:
89:
98:
81:
53:
181:
148:
17:
231:} - when I said I couldn't find sufficient evidence that this merits an article, I meant it failed our notability criterion.
206:
others were doubtful when they spun this off. Of course, deleting it will mean that the problem with what the subject is of
142:
138:
406:
382:
365:
344:
319:
282:
265:
240:
219:
63:
425:
188:
40:
85:
77:
69:
421:
361:
36:
154:
315:
311:
307:
303:
278:
274:
236:
215:
202:
sufficient evidence that this website or Ion publications merits an article, and if you look at the
174:
261:
378:
332:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
420:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
357:
203:
232:
211:
402:
257:
228:
374:
253:
115:
299:
295:
207:
198:
373:- two bad articles (or content forks) sometimes can make one decent article.
397:
414:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
227:
Sorry, I wasn't specific enough (and thought I'd mentioned
111:
107:
103:
173:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
428:). No further edits should be made to this page.
329:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
187:
8:
327:Note: This debate has been included in the
326:
302:article. So I am unsure at this point.--
7:
296:this section of Science 2.0 article
24:
390:An article on the website could
54:The Blade of the Northern Lights
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
310:) 22:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)--
445:
407:03:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
383:19:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
64:03:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
417:Please do not modify it.
366:15:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
345:15:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
320:15:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
283:16:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
266:14:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
241:16:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
220:13:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
78:Science 2.0 (website)
70:Science 2.0 (website)
197:This was split from
48:The result was
347:
436:
419:
341:
338:
335:
204:Talk:Science 2.0
192:
191:
177:
129:
119:
101:
60:
34:
444:
443:
439:
438:
437:
435:
434:
433:
432:
426:deletion review
415:
339:
336:
333:
134:
125:
92:
76:
73:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
442:
440:
431:
430:
410:
409:
385:
368:
349:
348:
324:
323:
322:
286:
285:
268:
246:
245:
244:
243:
210:may continue.
195:
194:
131:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
441:
429:
427:
423:
418:
412:
411:
408:
404:
400:
399:
393:
389:
386:
384:
380:
376:
372:
369:
367:
363:
359:
354:
351:
350:
346:
342:
330:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
290:
289:
288:
287:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
248:
247:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
416:
413:
396:
391:
387:
370:
352:
291:
270:
249:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
49:
47:
31:
28:
358:Science 2.0
300:Science 2.0
250:Weak Delete
208:Science 2.0
199:Science 2.0
161:free images
312:Tomwsulcer
304:Tomwsulcer
275:Tomwsulcer
233:Dougweller
212:Dougweller
422:talk page
37:talk page
424:or in a
392:possibly
258:Roodog2k
122:View log
39:or in a
375:Bearian
292:Comment
271:Comment
167:WP refs
155:scholar
95:protect
90:history
388:Delete
353:Delete
340:JAMMMY
229:WP:ORG
139:Google
99:delete
59:話して下さい
50:delete
403:talk
371:Merge
331:. ★☆
254:WP:OR
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
379:talk
362:talk
334:DUCK
316:talk
308:talk
279:talk
262:talk
237:talk
216:talk
175:FENS
149:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
398:DGG
343:☆★
189:TWL
124:•
120:– (
405:)
381:)
364:)
337:IS
318:)
281:)
264:)
239:)
218:)
169:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
62:)
52:.
401:(
377:(
360:(
314:(
306:(
277:(
260:(
235:(
214:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
118:)
80:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.