Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objections to the theory of loop quantum gravity

 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 ambiguous. I count 5 clear deletes and 3 keeps (one too ambiguous to interpret). Reading through the two articles, I concur that this is a fork in an attempt to avoid the resolution of the controversy on the main Loop quantum gravity page. That said, I believe the history may be worth preserving as the participants continue to work toward the resolution of the dispute. I am going to turn it into a redirect without merge. Rossami (talk) 01:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Objections to the theory of loop quantum gravity
POV fork of Loop quantum gravity. As a partial re-merge was already done triggered by Votes_for_deletion/Problems_with_loop_quantum_gravity, the article is now obsolete. It serves only as a funny display of pastel-shaded boxes and as a bad precedent (see: Talk:Anarchism). --Pjacobi 15:09, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
 * Keep. Isn't it sort of standard whenever one section of an article gets too long to move it to its own article?  This one is controversial, and could end up getting very long, right?  As long as the article is allowed to be edited by both detractors and supporters of LQG (no more forks, please), NPOV should be attainable?  The article still needs work, of course.  And what was wrong with the splitting done at Anarchism?  I read the talk section you linked, it seemed reasonable to me. -Lethe | Talk 15:25, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Article splits should be done per sub-topic, not per POV. --Pjacobi 16:32, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, yes, of course, I agree with that. I'm not sure whether you linked Anarchism as a precedent that should be followed, but it looked OK to me.  What happened there was that anarchist objections to capitalism was retitled (moved) to Anarchism and Capitalism, a more NPOV title.  Couldn't that happen here?  Move the article to "LQG and String Theory" or something, slap a Cleanup on it, and try to move it to a more NPOV position?  It seems to me that the article has usefulness and potential (although I'm not sure exactly how much of it is now redundant with LQG.  Maybe I should go check that out.)-Lethe | Talk 17:50, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to wherever is now appropriate. "OBJECTION ... REPLY ... OBJECTION ... REPLY ..." is a poor structure for an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 18:31, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, remove POV, article needs rewrite. Megan1967 00:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this invitation to ramble off on a fork. Wyss 10:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's possible that there's potential for a valid Wikipedia article discussing the weak points in LQG theory, but this isn't that article.  It reads like a political position paper, not a scientific treatise.  To be valuable as a scientific reference, it needs to cite scientific publications backing up the argument (either in the peer-reviewed literature, or at least reputable textbooks).  The fact that it's basically cut-and-pasted from a usenet posting is just another strike against it.  --RoySmith 14:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder but the version of the article in loop quantum gravity is a different version from the one in objections. Despite what Lumidek claims, the version in LQG is not the "optimized" version. Tweet Tweet 22:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with Pjacobi about the inappropriateness of POV-based "branches". Bryan 22:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's been a rash of these POV-breakout articles lately, and my perception is that they are trying to avoid the group process that maintains NPOV. Don't really know what to do about it, but deletion will do until we can think of something better. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:04, 23 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.