Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topic outline of Big Science

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic outline of Big Science

Once again, totally unsourced. There are no reliable sources that connect the term "Big Science" with any of the listed topics. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has also nominated the article Big Science for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Science. The Transhumanist 23:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's unsourced, but it could be sourced and is pretty well in line with standard understandings of topics related to the concept of big science.--ragesoss (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that we aim to provide ways for readers to navigate the encyclopaedia by topic. This is a topic outline, reachable from the table of contents as Portal:Contents → Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge → Topic outline of Big Science. Uncle G (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into See also and External links sections of Big Science. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same fate as for Big Science. `'Míkka>t 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Science --mikeu ^talk 01:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Science.--OMCV (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was unfamiliar with the Wikipedia's outline of knowledge system.--OMCV (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is part of Wikipedia's content system. It is part of Wikipedia's outline of knowledge. Like all the other pages of this outline, its purpose is to allow browsing of the subject's component topics without having to read prose. Also, the includability of the topics listed here is very easy to verify. For example: The Manhattan Project: Big Science and the Atom Bomb, by Jeff Hughes. And Mining the Genome: Big Science as Big Business -- A special report - Profits and ethics clash in research on genetic coding, by Lawrence M. Fisher, New York Times, January 30, 1994. The Transhumanist 23:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this outline is deleted, or merged and redirected to Big Science, it will leave a blatant hole in Wikipedia's outline of knowledge (formerly known as "Lists of basic topics") - articles aren't listed on the outline's main page (only component outlines, such as this outline), and any articles that get listed there are quickly removed. The purpose of deletion discussions isn't to dismantle Wikipedia's navigation systems. The Transhumanist 23:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a good point. I don't have a strong objection to keeping this article separate from the Big Science article - the information is useful, whereever it sits - so I have changed my !vote above to "Keep or Merge". Gandalf61 (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2009 (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.