Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientifically proven


 * 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 of the debate was REDIRECT to Scientific method. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientifically proven
A dictdef, and very nearly a tautology, and I see few prospects for useful expansion. A previous version of this topic by the same editor was speedy deleted, adn this was tagged for speedy as "nonsense" but i don't think it qualifies. However, Delete. DES (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Make it a Redirect to scientific method --  Subramanian talk 19:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A redirect is inappropriate because it would foster a fundamental misunderstanding of what science does. Durova 19:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The "fundamental misunderstanding" can be addressed in the scientific method article. Blackcats 20:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Blackcats has a point. As it isn´t obvious why they are different (it took me a moment to see the differences), it deserves a paragraph at scientific method. Subramanian talk 20:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong and speedy delete as an attempt to resurrect a previously deleted article. This is indeed patent nonsense.  Science does not prove.  It demonstrates.  No scientific principle, however respected, is immune to revision.  Newtonian physics went uncontested for centuries and was regarded as certain until new findings led to Quantum mechanics. Durova 19:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Then it should go (preferably as a note in scientific method): "Scientifically proven is a popular misconception..." The redirect is still needed. Subramanian talk 15:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or possibly massively overhaul. Science doesn't prove anything, we typically measure our ability to prove things in sigmas, and even that is just lazy language WilyD 19:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Subramanian (and protect if need be). Blackcats 20:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to scientific method, per above. Jamie 03:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Durova, or (very distant second choice) redirect to Scientific method. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:08, 13 December 2005 (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.