Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of Science

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 Keep The nominator changed his position. Non-admin closure. -RobertMel (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Science

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this belongs as a Wikipedia article. It seems rather silly, taking into account how large of a topic science is. EMS 2 4 02:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 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) Wikipedia 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 ProductofSociety (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Um, where does 'sillyness' come in on the wiki deletion policy page? Murderd2death (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 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. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point. It should be kept. —EMS 2 4 03:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Article is far from perfect, but the subject is notable. -RobertMel (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2010 (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.