Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descriptive 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 was keep. John254 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Descriptive science

Descriptive science (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

An unreferenced stub which has been just that since its creation. Appears to be either a dictionary definition or a personal opinion. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Seems probable to be a specialized term in philosophy (or similar discipline). Try to get someone to expand it. If no expansion can be made that is more than a dictionary definition and etymology, then delete per WP:NOT#DICT TheBilly (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, a quick google confirms the widespread use of this term by the scintific community. Stub status does not make an article any less valid. ViridaeTalk 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, being no more than what is obvious from the title plus lacking references plus lacking context plus being a dictionary definition is what does that. BTW, you're not an AfD regular as far as I know, has Jon canvassed this on WR? Guy (Help!) 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It wasn't canvassing, more a jibe at you. Feel free to add the standard template to the top however. ViridaeTalk 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh and it wasn't Jon. ViridaeTalk 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Makes a change. I blocked another of his socks yesterday. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. No, Keep. No, Delete. D'Oh! I Kant Decide! Luv, and do wacka do! Canvass Back Duck (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

    • This ammusing interlude was brought to you by Jon Awbrey. We shall now resume our scheduled programming. ViridaeTalk 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'll add to it. 4.250.168.224 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, yes the article desperately needs cleanup, but thats no reason to delete it. As matter of fact, we prescriptive science to be written as well. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - An important concept in philosophy of science and in just understanding the sciences. I really wish that people who don't know a subject wouldn't try to delete articles without researching the subject. --Lquilter (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2008 (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.