Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Community of Practice


 * 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 (already done by User:JzG). Sandstein 07:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Community of Practice

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Incoherent turgid jargon; notability far from clear; cited source provides no support for strange claims. Created by another user to avoid disruption by single-purpose editor at Communities of practice, but has not had that effect (see User_talk:Stevenson-Perez). If anyone can divine a reason for keeping this article, then it needs a severe copyedit and cleanup. TedFrank 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Whether incomprehensible jargon is deletable per se is a moot point, but this is an essay, not an article, and hence non-wikipedic.--Anthony.bradbury 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Stevenson-Perez left the following remark on my talk page, which I move here; I take it as an inept attempt at a "Keep" argument--TedFrank 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * March 14, 2007 Response RE: The Suitability Of Scientific Communities of Practice for Wikipedia Inclusion==
 * We apologize for any disruption caused by our unfamiliarity with the details of scripting in the submission of any of our contributions for Wikipedia: Any and all assistance in making necessary improvements in that regard will be appreciated.
 * At the same time, the notability of this scientific subject material, that includes citations from notable international-caliber scientific agencies (like the U.S. National Institutes of Health), national scientific policy boards (like the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) and major academic institutions (like Northwestern University), seems unquestionable.
 * If any editors have different interpretations of any cited references, again -- we would appreciate your clarification.
 * In closing, we hope that the current debate is not a rejection of a 'Scientific Perspective' on any relevant subject issue (like 'communities of practice'): Scientific perspectives have their own stand-alone merit, as they add balance, to other views of a pertinent subject (such as a 'Philosphical Perspective' or an 'Economic Perspective'.   All of the Wikipedia patterns of practice on other sites reveal this claim to be true.
 * There should not be any exception in this case: As the scientific readership of Wikipedia grows, then the scientific relevance (at least as a reading option) for any relevant issue should also grow.
 * We are contributing referenced and scientifically-objective reviews on important scientific topic areas that we manage professionally every day.  While we welcome any constructive editorial contributions to our submitted material, we will do everything possible to ask for higher administrative action, if the stated intention is to reject any of our contributions -- mainly because they represent a 'Scientific Perspective'.
 * Thank you for your consideration of our request for active, line-by-line, constructive improvement of our contributions to Wikipedia.
 * Sincerely, Stevenson-Perez 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)stevenson-perezStevenson-Perez 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * delete OR essay. Pete.Hurd 05:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- Pete.Hurd 05:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete The material is not properly referenced, does not consider the range of opinions on the subject area and is badly written. The authors are also inserting the same text on multiple sites and refusing to engage in discussion.  --Snowded 06:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete original research in need of edit help. --Ancheta Wis 11:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - per my comments here, duplication, OR, etc. - David Oberst 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete--ZayZayEM 03:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is obviously original research, and incoherent to boot. LastChanceToBe 05:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another article has now been created by the same editor at Scientific communities of practice. Uncle G 00:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * March 17, 2007 Informal Request For Wikipedia Administrative Resolution: Request For A Stand-Alone 'Scientific communities of practice' Wikipedia Site.


 * Since the owner of the 'Communities of Practice' site has summarily removed the 'scientific communities of practice' contribution today (without comment or negotiation), a separate stand-alone 'Scientific communities of practice' (shown below) entry is offered to avoid site warring, while still giving voice to a large and growing body of scientific research: Notable citations in the field of 'scientific communities of practice' include the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, to academic institutions around the world.  (Notability simply cannot be cited as a concern with this scientific field).


 * As the scientific readership of Wikipedia grows, the need to address their scientific interests must grow also. Moreover, there are a growing number of consumers who would like to understand 'the science' of many of the central issues of our time:  'Scientific communities of practice' is one of those issues.


 * We are asking for an expedited approval of the 'Scientific communities of practice' entry in exchange for removing this topic from all other Wikipedia sites.  We would appreciate your expedited approval of this request, and we would welcome any editorial contributions that would strengthen the encyclopedic knowledge that this entry affords to Wikipedia readers.


 * Sincerely,
 * Stevenson-Perez 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)stevenson-perezStevenson-Perez 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm, so the page has been deleted, but the AfD is not closed, anyone know who the deleting admin is? We ought to request the same admin speedy delete the recreation at Scientific communities of practice. Pete.Hurd 02:20, 18 March 2007 (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.