Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mapping controversies


 * 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   no consensus. Article has developed considerably since nomination. There is no clear consensus to delete current version.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Mapping controversies

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

Article that is not informative in nature, but argumentative, written only to give reason or build a thesis; lacks any supporting citations, and is only filled with questions and external links ←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez  Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 22:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I do not quite agree that the article is not informative - it actually does refer to a new trend in the social studies of sciences which has been gaining momentum during the last 3-4 years, and is currently considered "cutting edge" in the field. I'll include more references and hope this will make it acceptable. --Verpar (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This entry in its current form presents and informative overview of a new scientific trend. Useful links are made to various applications of this method so it will be very helpful to keep the entry for future reference. --Momuna (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This account has made little or no contribution outside this discussion.←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez  Get to know me!  /  Talk to me!  ←at≈:→ 22:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Update So, thanks for the feedback. I've included a definition and a little explanation that should make the whole entry sounds more understandable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verpar (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. While the topic may be worthy of an article, this text never gets around to telling us what it is even about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Smerdis that this is a poorly-written article. I note that one editor did a fix by paring down the flighty essay that was originally written, and I think it's great that there are sources added.  Now, if someone can answer the question "What the hell are mapping controversies?" in plain English, it could probably be kept. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep A lot of cleanup has been done, so i think it is at an ok level for further improvment. A clearer lead paragraph would be very useful though - i have 3 degrees in science, and i cannot undertand it! It is the study of controversies within scinece? Like arguments about Global warming amoungst scientists?Yobmod (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article is kept, and boy, right now is sure does make my brain hurt, it should probably be renamed to Controversy mapping, as this is a term used in at least one of the references and describes the subject in a much clearer fashion. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just read this article and I have no idea what a mapping controversy is. It sounds like it might be a useful addition to Wikipedia if explained. On the other hand, it might be just more post-modern, deconstructionist gobbledygook. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely Keep The entry has improved a lot over the last few days and it's stating pretty clear what mapping controversies is. One shouldn't forget this is more or less a scientific term and the added explanation and references are helpful in case the reader likes to "dig" further into social sciences. --Momuna (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This account has made little or no contribution outside this discussion.←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez  Get to know me!  /  Talk to me!  ←at≈:→ 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice. I consider myself an educated person, and I cannot understand, based on this article, what "mapping controversies" even are (or: is?). This makes any assessment of verifiability or notability rather difficult.  Sandstein   08:25, 15 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.