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 as original research. Guy (Help!) 02:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific value (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A WP:POV WP:OR, essay totally disconnected from mainstream philosophical work on the same topic. Notability of this POV is not established. While there are a handful of links to external sources, the article is a barrage of unsourced, but highly debatable, assertions (e.g.:

• "By definition, all new material scientific discoveries must derive from the scientific method.",
• "The Materialistic view of 'value' in the material sciences will ultimately lead back to the Periodic Table,"
• "... each impact of a scientific discovery upon an affected CoP is a reflection of the quality & the completeness of the intentions of the scientist-observer(s) that brought the discovery into being."

Other sentences are indecipherably close to WP:nonsense, e.g.:

• "the scientific Intentionality view will tend to focus upon the reproducibility of the specific intentionality of the scientist-observer(s) that brings the scientific discovery into being."

This article is part of a series of problematic articles and edits by User:Stevenson-Perez, see User_talk:Stevenson-Perez#Your_contributions, Community_of_practice#Communities_of_practice_.28scientific_perspective.29, DIKW, Meaning (scientific), Talk:Purpose#Essay_removal, Talk:Wisdom#Scientific_perspective, advancing what is essentially the same POV essay in a number of articles. Pete.Hurd 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my discussion here. Thanks to Pete.Hurd for pursuing this. DIKW and Community of practice will need some severe scrubbing down the line, and it may be time to pursue an RFC with Stevenson_Perez, who has rebuffed attempts to edit collaboratively. -- TedFrank 20:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I think Community of practice can be saved (per my vote at the AfD), but I think DIKW might deserve an AfD. Pete.Hurd 01:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.