Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NPOV (Comparison of views in science)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 02:23, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV (Comparison of views in science)
Policy to allow personal research. Bensaccount 00:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep This page is a draft for a set of guidelines. It is not claiming to be official policy yet.  Bensaccount has not tried to discuss any issues he has with the page on its talk page before taking this route.  Wikipedia needs guidelines as to how to be NPOV when comparing scientific viewpoints.  This page details how NPOV policy should be applied in this situation.  Perhaps people would wish to ensure these draft guidelines are reasonable and in accordance with the spirit of the NPOV rule rather than impulsively deleting them.  Barnaby dawson 00:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep good-faith policy draft. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 01:05, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an excellent stab at a very difficult issue. Ungtss 01:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs expansion. Megan1967 01:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, for same reasons given by Korath and Ungtss. --Idont Havaname 05:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the above reasons. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to subpage of a user page or at least put draft somewhere in the article name. I applaud people tackling the issue, but until it's done I don't think it should have that article name. --fvw *  22:06, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * I would agree with changing the name to Draft of NPOV (Comparison of views in science) or a similar title.  Note that the article does have a disclaimer at the top.  Anyone disagree with a change of name?  Barnaby dawson 16:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need a name change - putting it in category:Wikipedia policy thinktank is the right thing to do - David Gerard 12:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In any case, of course (and in contrast to edits attempting to "save") don't make the change before the VfD has been closed and the permanent disposition of this subpage effected. Don't throw the closer-admin an unnecessary curve! --Jerzy(t) 19:56, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
 * Keep w/o regard to whether the policy proposed is sound; deletion is not the way to cope even with challenges to strongly established policies. But should it be linked into the policy think tank? --Jerzy(t) 05:23, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
 * Keep. The complaint "Policy to allow personal research" does not state a rational reason for deletion of this page.  The cure to personal research is insisting on paraphrase, quotation, and citation to published scholarly opinion.  This draft policy explicitly covers the issue of "personal research" in items 5 and 6--by requiring citation to "primary sources."  ---Rednblu | Talk 21:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd vote against it, but its adoption should be the matter of a vote, if at all. Nevertheless, no reason to delete.  Smoddy | &epsilon;&iota;&pi;&epsilon;&tau;&epsilon; 19:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it's badly flawed (see talk page), but you don't just VFD good-faith policy proposals in the Wikipedia namespace! - David Gerard 12:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - it seems specifically designed to allow Creationists to forbid the inclusion of science in articles, so as to present their case in a more flattering light. It is notable that the only supporters of this policy on the talk page are Creationists involved in the Creation vs. evolution debate article. CheeseDreams 22:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.