Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proactionary Principle

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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 02:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Proactionary Principle

Neologism, still warm from the oven. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 23:45 (UTC)

• Comment: Ran through 5 days' vfd with no votes. Back to the front of the queue... Dunc|☺ 23:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable unless someone can provide a reference that anyone other than the creator of this neologism has paid any attention to it. Quale 01:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • See my vote below for these references. --HarveyNewstrom 20:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. But put the information somewhere else. Something like a "concepts in transhumanism" page that can aggregate blurbs like this, which seem to be a lot of the specific transhumanism things, more see also links than content. Arturus

• cit is an important concept. Wikipedia has an entry on the Precautionary_Principle, this article provides a needed balance. pgptag
• Keep. Alfio 10:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. BrentN 17 July 2005. Important part of the debate on science and policy.
  • This user has only two other edits. Denni☯

• Keep. Vergil 42 BC. "fortune favors the BOLD."
  • *This user's only contribution is to this VfD. Denni☯

• Keep. The precautionary principle emphasizes the potential costs of innovation, and its advocates favor pre-emptive restrictions on new technology based on the _potential_ harm that the new technology may cause. The proactionary principle emphasizes the opportunity costs of _not_ innovating, and it's advocates favor restrictions based primarily on _demonstrated_ harm. Although a neologism of relatively recent vintage, it succinctly names a large body of thought in opposition to the precautionary principle, that has heretofore, to my knowledge, gone unnamed. Crasch 15:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a simple matter to Google for this term, exluding the authors and wikipedia, to see hundreds of references to it by various organizations and projects. See <http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Proactionary+Principle%22+-site%3Aextropy.org+-site%3Aextropy.com+-site%3Awikipedia.org+-site%3Amaxmore.com&btnG=Search>. --HarveyNewstrom 15:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • *This user's only contribution is to this VfD. --HarveyNewstrom (saving Denni the trouble of looking this up.)

• Keep. The proactionary principle came out of Vital Progress Summit I. Many organizations participated. --Macterra 18:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This user has only one other edit. Denni☯

• Keep. The article may need some NPOV work, though. --NeuronExMachina 20:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep.
  • vote by anonymous user 80.47.62.145, whose only edit is this vote. Ken

• Keep.
  • vote by anonymous user 209.128.88.148, whose only edit is this vote. Ken

• Delete nn neologism. Ken 00:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is clear that as Denni and Ken aren't proposing similar treatment of the Precautionary Principle, their VfD is therefore an obvious POV attempt at political suppression by editing consensus reality and preventing access to all terms of debate.Mlorrey 02:56, 18 July 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.