Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science 2.0 (website)

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science 2.0 (website)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was split from Science 2.0 which was originally about the concept of science 2.0 but which at times was being changed to be about the Ion Publications website, etc called Science 2.0. Neither of these are very good articles and originally read, and still do to a large extent, as essays and original research. I can't find sufficient evidence that this website or Ion publications merits an article, and if you look at the Talk:Science 2.0 others were doubtful when they spun this off. Of course, deleting it will mean that the problem with what the subject is of Science 2.0 may continue. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough (and thought I'd mentioned WP:ORG} - when I said I couldn't find sufficient evidence that this merits an article, I meant it failed our notability criterion. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete 'The article isn't any good' is not a valid criterion for deletion, but I am leaning to delete. My issue with this article is that it may be a content fork, although I do agree with what you're saying about WP:OR. But, a google search does indicate that it is a valid term... sort of. I feel that the term "Science 2.0" is more of an idiomatic expression, where you can say "X 2.0" about anything when trying to make the larger point of using the internet to assist with an activity that didn't use it before... Car Buying 2.0, Commuting 2.0, Fapping 2.0... It's like saying "X is the new black."Roodog2k (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my research I'm finding lots of notable sources for both the website and the topic and I am starting to get a handle about what each is about. I'll try to revamp both articles time permitting. Right now my best guess is the topics are notable, but just badly handled, and hopefully if they're done right users may vote to keep one or both topics. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Basically what I'm getting after revamping the Science 2.0 article is this: Science 2.0 is a controversial (Wikipedia-like) sharing model for scientific collaboration, with some proponents, some opposed -- it is continuing to be in a rapid transition; Science 2.0 (website) is a website along the lines of Science 2.0 (sharing, open, free exchange, akin to Wikipedia somewhat) -- and it appears to be gaining credibility in that numerous sources (USA Today, Wall Street Journal etc -- see this section of Science 2.0 article) put links to Science 2.0 website articles. It appears to be gaining respectability. Still, I don't know if Science 2.0 website should have its own article or whether people feel it can be included in the current Science 2.0 article. So I am unsure at this point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Dougweller. A new page solves the wrong problem and the rationalization for it wasn't convincing. It also ended up creating two bad articles instead of fixing the one that exists to be a little clearer about the precepts of Science 2.0 and how they are embodied in various efforts. Science 2.0 (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - two bad articles (or content forks) sometimes can make one decent article. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on the website could possibly be written. However, there is not a single sentence of information in the article as it stands that is about the site, beyond the statement in the first sentence that it exists as one implementation. Everything else is about the general concept, which is notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.