Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical computer 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Critical computer science
I'm putting this up for deletion because it is a horrible unsourced essay which I think is completely unverifiable as it is solely the author's work. It is mentioned and used and link-to-from nowhere else, an apt demonstration of its irrelevance and neologisticness. --maru  (talk)  contribs 22:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some of it is sourced, but most is not, and I think both the selection of what is said and a lot of the opinions expressed reflect a rather personal view of the author. And the "praxis" of software development is definitely not computer science. Lambiam Talk 23:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: In the author's own words, "With equal temper I will accept this article being nuked based on its unmet needs, and will return to the issue when I have time." &mdash; ßottesiηi  Tell me what's up 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per Bottesini, possibly userfy. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Morgan Wick 00:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy and Delete --Haham hanuka 08:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. —Ruud 16:06, 27 April 2006 (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.

A message from the original author concerning this deletion: no sweat: my bad Spinoza1111 10:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Edward G. Nilges
No sweat. I did not have time as I'd planned to follow up on the unmet needs. I'd hoped that a wikipedian would put the boot in and add content and references but none appeared.

I agree that the article didn't disambiguate comp sci and software engineering. However, critical technology questions the boundaries between subdisciplines because those boundaries are mental and social construction. It puzzled me, as it puzzled Dijkstra, how there can be a pure computer science if as Dijkstra wrote, programming is applied mathematics. Of course, computer science is more than programming, as computer scientists who can't program like to say, in the same register that software engineering is programming for people who can't program. Software engineering turns out to be nearly null because computer science is applied mathematics and hence impure, and leaves nothing for software engineering except thrashing the help (Taylorist scientific management, applied to people who can code).

I will retry in future when I have time to resubmit an article that meets Wikipedia guidelines. Sorry for any wasted time, but it was my unfulfilled intention to improve and make-wiki the existing article.