Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science and technology

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 no consensus to delete established. W.marsh 14:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science and technology

Redundant, articles already exist seperately on science and technology. In fact most of this page's text is lifted from those two articles. (this was a speedy nomination, which I changed to AfD; there is also a related discussion on Talk:Science and technology ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. we don't need an article for every combination of words and/or practice under the sun. -wtfunkymonkey 03:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename to "Relationship Between Science and Technology". The scope of the article should be changed to explore the relationship between the two terms, which is a very relevant one, and not to just listing their definitions. After all, the development of technology is related to the development of science and vice-versa.--Lobizón 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't see the role of encyclopedia articles to merely explore the relationship between two terms, unless there is a specific and notable history of the particular phrase in question (such as "cloak and dagger"). Perhaps that is the case with "science and technology," but this isn't conveyed in the current article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment That's why I think the scope of the article should be changed to reflect this relationship, rather than delete the article altogether. Technological and scientific progress go hand in hand, and there are a lot of academic works, historical or sociological, explaning the historic relationship between the development of both.--Lobizón 12:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Which is why we properly have articles on the academic disciplines studying these two terms: science and technology studies & history of science and technology. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, purely redundant. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 06:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete These concepts should (and are) discussed in two seperate articles. This article is not needed. Signature^brendelNow under review! 07:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. I think we need to be carefull here and it might be best to see how the article develops for a while. As is pointed out on the talk page the term "Science and Technology" is used frequently as in "S & T Studies", "History of S & T" etc. This make it a likely search term on WP. It is not just the sum of what is on two different articles. I would much prefer to have time to argue this out on the talk page rather than at AfD. --Bduke 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (also for now). The article is not to explain the term "science" and the term "technology." It is for the term "science and technology" which takes on a meaning other than the sum of its two parts. I am the first to admit that the article in its current state is weak. However, I am not the right person to write the final article and it was my intent to put a clean-up tag on the article but I did not move fast enough and the speedy delete tag was up before I found my tag. It may turn out that nobody is able to bring this up to the desired standard, but at least give the article a couple of months to show where it can go. Cheers -- MCG 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete the article does not establish any insight of merit that is not found in the primary and secondary articles on science and technology already. This is not to say that it couldn't do that, but that it does not right now. --Buridan 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If there is merit, why delete it as opposed to fix it? It has been pointed out that there are several articles incorporating this term (which is more than its two parts). Additionally there are categories that do this as well; in a quick search I can find Category:Science and technology by country (and this is full of many other sub categories of science and technology) and Category:Science and technology studies. If you delete the article Science and technology, it will eventually be re-created. Why not deal with the content of the article now instead of later? -- MCG 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Main article has been trimmed significantly to essentially stub-status. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The question of alternative approaches and the benefit of incrementalism and "breakthrough" aka "spontaneous innovation", is quite an important subject in engineering and science. It is a bit like having an article on the trinity for religion in some ways they are considered the same thing, but in other ways they are very different. The term is used frequently enough to make it a potential article - so why not slap an { { undercontruction} } tag on it?--Mike 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep But please add a scholarly source for the claim that there is more to the Gestalt "Science and Technology" than to the conjunction of "Science" and "Technology." Otherwise, even though I believe the claim in the introduction, this looks somewhat like original research. Edison 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a bit sad that this article is all we have to say on the subject of Science and Technology in the general sense. Surely there can be more flesh added to these bones along with some nice cites? Robovski 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

yep... it is sad.. but that is why there are around 40 other articles covering this material. this article at best should be a category at best, and you know what... it already is.... so this article is moot. --Buridan 02:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment But it is not already a category. Category:Science and technology -- MCG 03:10, 9 November 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.