Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Scientific enterprise

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept

[edit] Scientific enterprise

I add this here more for editorial review, and possible deletion. This article recovers the information already present in Science and Scientific method. It has NPOV issues, and reads like an essay. While it is a large article, and largely factual the term "scientific enterprise" does not seem to reflect what the article is about. It seems more like an alternate viewpoint of science filled with opinion. It has been on cleanup for over 2 months and has never been edited by a large group of people. What is the consensus? [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 00:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete for POV and duplication what is not POV. This seems to be about science entrepeneurs, not science, not scientific method, and it seems to be advocacy of science for profit. That kind of explains the two editor thing. To me, the issue is POV and solely POV. I didn't find much that was NPOV that wasn't covered better at Science. Geogre 01:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I get the feeling there might be an interesting article in here about the role of money in science. On the other hand, if it hasn't been extracted in 2 months, then perhaps it won't ever be extracted. It seems a pity to delete though. Abstain --Improv 01:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I fill the same as the above. There could be a great article on the role of money and the notion of enterprise (and even empire) in science (some of which is covered, though, in Big Science). But this isn't it, this doesn't make any sense at all. I was the one who listed it on cleanup, which did really nothing. Mostly because there is so much jumbled and disconnected content there already, it is hard to know where to start. I'm going to abstain myself -- I don't really think the article has any hope in its current stage but deleting it feels drastic. It doesn't help that the original author is fond of non-standard formatting either (lots of needless and confusing indents). --Fastfission 01:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, original research. --Yath 04:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I would have given it one last try at WP:PNA with specific objections, but I doubt there would have been better results there than at cleanup. The thing does not read like an encyclopedia article; I think the best words to describe it would be "freshman business major essay." I won't feel sad to see this one go. Delete. --Ardonik.talk()^* 05:00, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
• I agree w/ others that there seems to be the kernel of an article here, if only someone would spend some time on it. Weak keep -- move to WP:PNA and hope for the best. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I think a good article could be salvaged from this. — Gwalla | Talk 17:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.