Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morality of 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 redirect to Research. Even though the subject has potential, there was a consensus that its current incarnation is not suitable for an article in the mainspace. or any other user may expand the redirect once more suitable content has been written. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Morality of science

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Superfluous non-article consisting of a single, unref'd line and a grab-bag of links. Basically untouched for more than a decade. Alternately, could be redirected to Morality or Ethics of Science and Technology. Pepper Beast   (talk)  11:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  11:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PepperBeast, for the page to be superfluous, it needs to be superfluous to something else. Your suggested redirect to Morality is ridiculous – that page does not use the word science even a single time. SpinningSpark 18:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Entirely WP:OR. Nothing here to preserve. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Ethics of science and tech article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no such article as Ethics of science and technology. The nom was suggesting a redirect to a category. SpinningSpark 18:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I had this undeleted with the intention of doing some work on it (admittedly, I wasn't going to go very deep).  But since the nom has chosen not to wait to see what I do with it, I will put that on hold for now.  This is a broad-concept article that is unarguably notable with a great deal written on the topic.  To give just a couple of examples there is The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values and (presenting the diametrically opposed argument) Science and the Good.  Since article content does not determine notability but rather, is determined by what that article could become, we should keep the page and allow it to grow. SpinningSpark 18:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As an aside, the title is slightly off, it should be renamed Morality and science. Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to think I'm against writing about this area, but if what you want to do is write a different article with a different title, you should probably do that.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  20:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to write a different article, I want to improve this one. In any case, I am for keeping the page regardless of whether or not it is worked on immediately. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Research ethics. On the one hand, I think there is potential for a broad-concept article at this title, incorporating research ethics, ethics of technology, nuclear ethics, etc. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of keeping useless articles around on the off-chance that someone will improve them someday. If this is made into a redirect, SpinningSpark or anyone else can easily recreate it with different content if they feel so inclined. (As a side-note, though, I think the article SpinningSpark wants to write is science of morality, which already exists.) Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. That is what the sources I provided are about, but that was just by way of demonstrating the notability of one aspect of the broad concept.  On another aspect there is The Morality of Weapons Research. Everybody seems to need to tell me what I want to write about.  I'm the one who knows what I want to write about. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 19:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete As per NOM, this is just a list of wikilinks. To be an article this would have to have content about the topic, and it has none. Lamona (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete this list of wikilinks. SpinningSpark can write a draft article and then we can decide whether that can be moved to this title. --Bduke (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete for now. Though the article has great potential, it should probably be returned to draftspace until it can meet the GNG> Spinningspark, I respect your work and ambitions, but this is not yet ready for the mainspace. <span style="font-family:'Rubik', sans-serif; color:#21a81e; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Toadspike (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or draftify: I don't disagree that this topic is notable. However, while article content does not decrease notability (as stated above), being a new creation does not protect an article from being nominated for deletion. (WP:NEWARTICLE) If this is going to be worked on, it should be done in the draft or user space. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 04:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Research with possibilities, and work there for the time being. SWinxy (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect somewhere until something has been drafted that is not embarassing to have in mainspace (actually I'd suggest Philosophy_of_science). One waffly sentence and a vaguely related link list cannot be defended as useful. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.