Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific superpowers

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific superpowers

Scientific superpowers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log) Neologism, Notability, Verifiability, OR Sijo Ripa 18:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this page violates several guidelines. Secondly, my remarks on the talk page nor the warning templates resulted in any effort to address these concerns, which eventually led me to nominate this page for deletion:

1. WP:NEO. The article does not prove that the term "scientific superpower" is recognized and used as a "concept" or "term" (as opposed to the mere occasional combination of an adjective (scientific) and a substantive (superpower)).
2. WP:N. Even if this would be used as a specific concept (which is doubtful), it does not seem to have gained a real acceptance. While the google test is not a perfect way to measure this, it can be an indicator: "Scientific superpower" only gains 924 google hits (and some of these hits are Wikipedia database dump copies of this article or references to this Wikipedia article), which could mean that it violates WP:N (among others: "significant coverage"). Apparently, it now gets about 9,000 hits.
3. WP:V. The article does not provide any references.
4. WP:OR. Uncited facts are combined to advance a position (i.e. that a particular country is a scientific superpower), which constitutes a violation of WP:SYNTH (and possible WP:NPOV). Sijo Ripa 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, complete synthesis. --Eyrian 18:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to be some wotrdfs that have been used in conjuction, rather than a true neologism. The 'definition" appears to be OR. Artw 19:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I tried to qualify some of the opinions given in the article, but it's probably best to just delete it... the whole premise of the article is OR. --Nucleusboy 19:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - orginal research. --Oscarthecat 21:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Ohhh, that kind of superpowers... Man, I was let down by the actual article. Alas, deletion appears to be the way to go, per nominator's rationale. --Agamemnon2 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I was 99% sure it was going to turn out to be some kind of Warren Ellis fancruft. Artw 21:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• LOL I, too, was expecting an article about bionics, x-ray eye implants, and other scientific attempts to give people superpowers (besides the obvious ones of exposing oneself to radioactive fallout and imbibing toxic chemicals). Disappointment notwithstanding, this is an unsourced ranking of which nations supply our planet with bionics, x-ray eye implants, radioactive fallout and toxic chemicals. No source, no cites, no service! Mandsford 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete delete delete!!! Per nom, and everyone else. KTC 13:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. IP198 18:53, 27 August 2007 (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.