Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science 2.0 (website): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:55, 5 June 2012

Science 2.0 (website)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was split from Science 2.0 which was originally about the concept of science 2.0 but which at times was being changed to be about the Ion Publications website, etc called Science 2.0. Neither of these are very good articles and originally read, and still do to a large extent, as essays and original research. I can't find sufficient evidence that this website or Ion publications merits an article, and if you look at the Talk:Science 2.0 others were doubtful when they spun this off. Of course, deleting it will mean that the problem with what the subject is of Science 2.0 may continue. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete 'The article isn't any good' is not a valid criterion for deletion, but I am leaning to delete. My issue with this article is that it may be a content fork, although I do agree with what you're saying about WP:OR. But, a google search does indicate that it is a valid term... sort of. I feel that the term "Science 2.0" is more of an idiomatic expression, where you can say "X 2.0" about anything when trying to make the larger point of using the internet to assist with an activity that didn't use it before... Car Buying 2.0, Commuting 2.0, Fapping 2.0... It's like saying "X is the new black."Roodog2k (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dougweller. I am researching this subject a bit and trying to revamp Science 2.0 so I may change my vote depending on what I learn; but right now, my eyes glaze over at the Science 2.0 website article, I see no references and lots of text, and can't make sense about what the article is about, if anything; comments from the talk page don't help much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Dougweller. A new page solves the wrong problem and the rationalization for it wasn't convincing. It also ended up creating two bad articles instead of fixing the one that exists to be a little clearer about the precepts of Science 2.0 and how they are embodied in various efforts.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 *'''Delete''' as per Dougweller. I am researching this subject a bit and trying to revamp [[Science 2.0]] so I may change my vote depending on what I learn; but right now, my eyes glaze over at the Science 2.0 website article, I see no references and lots of text, and can't make sense about what the article is about, if anything; comments from the talk page don't help much.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 14:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites|list of Websites-related deletion discussions]]. &#9733;&#9734; [[User:DUCKISJAMMMY|<font color="Fuchsia">DUCK</font><font color="blue">IS</font><font color="Fuchsia">JAMMMY</font>]]&#9734;&#9733; 15:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)<!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small>
+*'''Delete''' as per Dougweller. A new page solves the wrong problem and the rationalization for it wasn't convincing. It also ended up creating two bad articles instead of fixing the one that exists to be a little clearer about the precepts of Science 2.0 and how they are embodied in various efforts.