Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexicon of science

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lexicon of science

Substantialy the same as List_of_cocepts_in_science, which is also AfD. If that one is deleted then this one should be too. Swamp Ig 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is substantially similar, but the context is different. A serious consideration should be given for its inclusion, rather than hasty judgements. I would like a civilm discussion rather than biased judgements. Charlie 08:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• I wonder if this sort of thing isn't covered in a template titled "Scientific Terms" or something like that. It's essentially a list of article links broken down alphabetically, which I believe is exactly what a template does. JHMM13 08:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't see how this article could be expanded to include all the important concepts in science without becoming a huge, unwieldy list of no use to anyone. Same goes for the (mis-spelled) List_of_cocepts_in_science. Even 'Lexicon of Biology, of Chemistry, of Physics' would be too broad in scope to be useful, IMO. --Squiddy 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do you presume its size, before letting anybody to try making it. Don't be too hasty! it is unhealthy. There is no page scientific terms on wikipedia. I repeat why such haste in recommending delete.Charlie 09:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for same reasons as list of cocepts in science. And list of science topics functions quite well for that, and is organised by category. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Basically the same duplicate content as list of concepts in science. So my vote is the same: either delete or merge with list of science topics, possibly leaving a redirect. - Mike Rosoft 15:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Charlie, you are making trouble. – Smyth\^talk 18:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. What a trainwreck. rodii 21:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It hurts my eyes. I see no reasonable use for it. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why the genuine efforts of some one should hurt anybody's eyes. The only reason can be intolerance.Charlie 11:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC) Delete - not because the article is irrelevant but because it is not holistic and may misguide by its limitation to unsuspecting readers. If the author can make it comprehensive and holistic I shall consider him a real good samaritan. sum

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.