Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Letter to the Scientific Community
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was - should be merged
Not noteworthy enough to have its own article. Maybe not noteworthy enough to be anywhere in an article, above plain mentioning as "External link". --Pjacobi 12:47, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
- Rant? Vanity? Original Research? Maybe all of the above. In any case, Delete --RoySmith 14:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep unless the reference (New Scientist) turns out to be bogus. Needs a better title though - David Gerard 15:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to
Big Bangwherever the discussion of Big Bang criticisms is today ☺ with no Redirect (Uncle G 21:11, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)):- Many people have written open letters to the scientific community over the years, on a variety of subjects. Until we have an article that discusses open letters to the scientific community, this article should remain an empty space. This particular open letter is no more deserving of special mention under that title than any of the many others.
- See the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Big Bang Critiques.
- This should NOT be merged with the Big Bang article. It is not part of the Big Bang. Joshuaschroeder 21:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- A criticism of the Big Bang theory doesn't belong in the Weaknesses and criticisms of the Big Bang theory section of Big Bang? What reason do you have for asserting that? Uncle G 00:05, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Here's one: the section no longer exists. Joshuaschroeder 01:21, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It existed at the time that you wrote your assertion and I wrote my response, as you well know. Uncle G 04:34, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Granted. However, due to my own actions, now it no longer exists, and so the proper location for this would be non-standard cosmology Joshuaschroeder 06:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It existed at the time that you wrote your assertion and I wrote my response, as you well know. Uncle G 04:34, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Here's one: the section no longer exists. Joshuaschroeder 01:21, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- A criticism of the Big Bang theory doesn't belong in the Weaknesses and criticisms of the Big Bang theory section of Big Bang? What reason do you have for asserting that? Uncle G 00:05, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Merge with Big Bang without redirect. Martg76 23:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, borderline POV pushing. Khanartist 01:22, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Merge with non-standard cosmology. I have just finished cleaning up the Big Bang page. I am of the opinion now that this article should probably be merged back into its old resting place which was non-standard cosmology. Not that I'm too fond of that article either, but this thing definitely doesn't belong on the Big Bang page. The Big Bang is a scientific paradigm and discussion about its inadequacies or its triumphs are simply the purview of the scientific endeavor and scientific community in general. It says nothing about the content of the Big Bang. Joshuaschroeder 01:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with
Big BangNon-standard cosmology, without redirect. A subheading is definitely necessary in order to point out this is not mainstream Big Bang viewpoints. Megan1967 01:54, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Modified as above, good call Joshua. Megan1967 01:55, 16 Jan 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.