Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue sky science


 * 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   keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Blue sky science

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

type of science apparently, which seems to have been made up by the creator, the only google hits are about the actual science of why the sky is blue. Article seems complete OR and has zero links Jac 16888 Talk 11:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Original essay containing non-encyclopedia content. -Atmoz (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR --     03:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete There are, in fact, some google hits for this term in the sense it is used here (for example here) but this particular article is an OR essay. It might be salvageable short of a total rewrite, but I'm not convinced. Anaxial (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The term definitely exists and should probably have an entry. I have (as my first act as a member of the Article Rescue Squadron) reworked the introduction which should be able to become good enough as a stub even if the rest of the flowery prose is deleted. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Although the article needs clean-up -- and is getting it -- there's ample evidence that the term was not invented by the article's editor, having appeared in sources from The Times of London to Nature magazine. The concept that the term represents -- theoretical research in fields thought not immediately practical or profitable -- is certainly worth covering. The article should be edited down to what appears in the sources. That scalpel of editing is the right tool for the job, not the hatchet of deletion. -- Shunpiker (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep while a little gimicky, the thesis is notable. the Times debate does show the conflict. (when the verifiable source is an issue essay, then it's not OR of the article author) pohick (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article would benefir from careful WP:CLEANUP so as to improve Wiki. Since it can be so improved, deletion should not be an issue.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:03, 23 February 2009 (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.