Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heisenberg's Scientific Method (2nd nomination)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Heisenberg's Scientific Method
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Originally sent to AfD on May 10, but was spiked per G5 due to suspicions that the author was a sock of a user banned for pseudoscience pushing. While the author was cleared of sockpuppetry, this version has the same problems as the previous one--it's an essay, and one laden with OR. Since this was speedied so soon, I don't think this qualifies as a G4, so back to AfD it goes. Blueboy96 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely an essay. ¨victor falk 20:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As it stands, it appears mainly to be essayist commentary. WilliamH (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete essay, as it is pretty much in breach of WP:OR. I don't think this namespace can be meaningfully redirected to anywhere else. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a personal essay. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as personal synthesis. I unblocked the creator and tried to point out the synthetic character or guide him to other articles such as the Copenhagen interpretation that has a section on criticisms, Bohr-Einstein debates and Interpretation of quantum mechanics. While there is literature about Heisenbergs approach to physics, this is neither a common term a nor it right approach for an encyclopedia article and all material still exists in user space, if something fits in anywhere else.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Heisenberg was a philosopher of science, including extensive writings on the Scientific method. However, I don't think any of the content of this article can be saved for an article on this topic, and I don't think the title is correct, or that the essay actually reflects Heisenberg's philosophical reflections upon the the scientific method in the research sciences, particularly in physics.  It would be wonderful, however, to see Wikipedia have an expanded article on Heisenberg and a separate article on his philosophical musings.  I'm surprised with the rather strong physics presence and a good assortment on the history of science on Wikipedia that nothing of the sort exists.  --Blechnic (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure original research, "referenced" only to the W. Guglinski's unrefereed, uncited, unreviewed vanity-press book.  Also, speaking as a physicist, the article is totally wrong.  Quantum mechanics reproduces all of classical mechanics' results in the appropriate limit, and this is abundantly documented in the mainstream literature and pedagogy of the past 100 years as well as many Wikipedia articles; the premise of this article appears to be "Quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics, therefore it is obviously wrong; let's read between the lines in Heisenberg's biography and show that he was a moron."   Feh.  Bm gub (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2008 (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.