Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocktail napkin science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cocktail napkin science

Was tagged a speedy, but I couldn't quite identify a speedy criteria to put it under. Also, I've heard of this concept before, perhaps not under the name "Cocktail napkin science", but it's possible that this is a fairly well-known concept. "Cocktail napkin science" itself yields only 4 Google hits, but it could be under another name. Thoughts? No vote yet.-- Fang Aili 說嗎? 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The creator of this page has tried to add a reference to it from the Peak oil page to disparage genuine science. At most it should be an alternate title for "back of an envelope" page which by the authors own admission was the original term and is in fact the more commonly used despite his affection for cocktail napkins. The creator's biography also states legal entanglements that would be affected by this article. The content of the article is also questionable as point of view. Carbonate 01:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Carbonate - you're free to criticise within reason - but this legal thing you mention - is that an inebriated rant - or if not what does it mean? As the "creator" I should hope I knew of any legal matters related to Peak prognostication. Also - do tell - what is the legitimate science in peak oil - note the entire argument turns on name-dropping, hero-worship and FUD - there is not a wit of hard science referenced in the entire piece to support even one of the 4 main tenants, the best we have is a scrap of paper scrawled upon by the great one. It's poor science, poor economics - classic Cocktail napkin science. Benjamin Gatti 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is ranting to draw attention to items mentioned on your own user page and if you are involved in some arbitration, it needs to be known by others if fair assessments are to be made. I will admit that I did not check the source of the comments on your user page and if they are inaccurate I apologize for bringing them to light here and suggest you make corrections. As to your references on the peak oil page, you should describe what is lacking in any of Hubbert's published works there rather than create a new page that says nothing relevant and linking to it. You clearly have not read much of the reference material on the peak oil page and I would direct you an easily obtained copy "Twilight in the Desert" by Matthew Simmons who references and digests thousands of papers from the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Carbonate 09:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I would argue that even if I were an axe-murderer passing caesarean-encrypted edits through from exile in Bahrain - it would have little to do with the subject of science and whether or not some science really isn't science after the Galilean/Newtonian tradition of empirical and repeatable first-person observation - Indeed, you, my gentle friend, whether you acknowledge it or not, are a product of the enlightenment, and if you had any idea of the personal lives of the icons under whose intellectual umbrella you, and I both take shelter, you might be tempted to run rabidly back into the rain. I suggest politely that it really is inappropriate to rant against a position by attacking the messenger - of which I suggest, you know only a fractional portion of the precious little there is to know. While I am active in the legal sphere, my legal interests have to do with eliminating predatory advertising on public property and nothing whatsoever to do with Peak Oil (which could hardly get into court - there being no evidence on which to base a claim). Moreover, I believe that I did discuss my concerns re Peak Oil as so many have, and my observation is that one point of view has been permitted to dominate the article at the expense of the reader. While I am as concerned as the next about the humanitarian issues surrounding energy, I try not to allow my zeal to confuse the line between belief and science. Nor the line between what is fact and what is WP:NCB Benjamin Gatti 21:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete I have a degree in physics and worked as an engineer until I retired, and I do not recall ever hearing this term. pstudier 22:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Could be interesting if someone could name a scientific theory that actually began on a cocktail napkin or something similar, but I can only think of references on shows like The Simpsons and a Dave Barry article that said supply-side economics became popular after someone held a cocktail napkin with some other theory sideways. --Joelmills 22:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears that Napkin and Envelope are exchangeable terms, with Napkin being the modern equivalent of the older Envelope, and that the variation of the phrase from Back of Envelope, Back of Napkin, Calculation, Physics etc are abundant with at least two books combining envelope or napkin with physics or science. True, these variations are not stable and singular within the language; however in all their variety they share the common meaning of a rough estimation of some scientific conjecture. (Bias Declared) Benjamin Gatti 23:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Another Comment Perhaps it makes sense to merge into Back-of-the-envelope-calculations which is presumable the original phrase - but I also think the phrase Napkin Science - refers to something related but distinct. I also think this particular form of the expression may be fairly deemed a colloquialism - however, the principle of Cargo cult science is important, and I see evidence that Fermi's Napkin is being merged with Feynman's cult to accurately describe that branch of pseudo-science which achieves social importance prior to rigorous experimentation. Benjamin Gatti 02:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. Not sure it's notable enough on its own to justify an entire article. I'd keep it all under one title and make it clear that it's also known as A, B and C. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


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.