Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superseded scientific theories


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Biblio  worm  04:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Superseded scientific theories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article misuses the term scientific theory. The majority of this list is comprised of ideas, hypothesis, and protoscience that do not fit the modern definition of a scientific theory. The fact that the term theory is so often misapplied makes revision of this article cumbersome and unlikely. As time goes on, more and more subjects like the rain follows the plow will be added, necessitating research and discussion by individuals who understand what a scientific theory is. The current state of this article suggests that such editing will not take place. Xyrtex (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * keep. It may well be that the term 'scientific theories' is misused here, I'm not sure.  But it is useful to have a list of ideas that were at one time widely held by the best minds on the planet, and later determined to not be valid.  Such a list shows growth and change in human knowledge over the centuries.  YBG (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't the title be Superseded Ideas in Human History or something like that? The misused term scientific theory permeates the article to the point that it should be entirely rewritten under a different title.  In order to be correct under the current title, all of the models, hypothesis, and the ideas that did not arise from the scientific method should be deleted.Xyrtex (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this class of abandoned ideas should include those listed in the article History of science, but "Ideas in Human History" seems a bit too broad, as it would encompass areas of knowledge such as rhetoric and literature and other humanities. Natural philosophy is another term that has been used historically for these areas of inquiry, but I don't think it would a helpful in this case. YBG (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but restrict it to Scientific theories that were proven wrong, not those that are incomplete (that'd encompass pretty much all of modern physics, I think). No valid reason for deletion has been provided; this doesn't descend to WP:coatrack. Our ancestors genuinely believed in some funny things (e.g. Isaac Newton and alchemy), but who are we to brag? There are plenty of nutjobs out there with even sillier notions with much less justification. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But once again, most of the list are not scientific theories and alchemy is most certainly not. Perhaps a visit to that page would clear this up.  The casual use of the word theory does not apply here.  Is Wikipedia the place to decide if a branch of thought is a scientific theory?WP:SUBJECTIVECAT  If so what authoritative sources can be used to settle disagreements?  If you want a list of the funny things that our ancestors believed in, than the term scientific theory has little relevance.Xyrtex (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dial down your snarkiness. Phlogiston theory, Caloric theory, Steady State theory, etc. were all scientific theories of some standing at one time or other. It could use some cleanup, but that's not a valid reason to delete it. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not trying to be snarky, just frustrated. Of the 46 items in this list, 30 are not scientific theories; 2 are not superseded; 8 I'm not sure about; and 6 are good examples of superseded scientific theories.  I see your point that some type of article like this is useful, but with the current title, it uses the list to improperly define what a scientific theory is.  This is a problem because many people are already unclear about this definition.  For what it is worth, I think that this article can be viewed as propaganda for the anti-science view that scientific theories (i.e. evolution)are just guesses or theories in the common use of the word.  So how should I clean this up (I am actually asking for help here)?  Should I delete all of the hypothesis, models, and philosophy, or should we find a new title that is not misleading?Xyrtex (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Most of these issues could be resolved on the talk page.  If one were feeling particularly bold, one could simply remove any off-topic, unreferenced text.  I think a rename might be a better choice than wholesale deletion of examples, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite An article should not be put up for deletion over a terminology dispute. Go to its talk page and gather consensus for a rename and rewrite, or go ahead and do it yourself—I don't think you'll find too much in the way of resistance. You just need to decide on a good name. Superseded scientific ideas? That covers theories, hypotheses and even protoscience, I would say, but I'll defer to more qualified editors. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the real issue is one of scope and terminology, and those issues do not belong at Afd, unless the article is so foul that WP:TNT applies, which is not the case here. Move discussion to Talk:Superseded scientific theories. I like special contributor 72.200.151.13's idea of renaming to Superseded scientific ideas. --Bejnar (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2014 (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.