Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaning (scientific)

:{{la|Meaning (scientific)}}

On an organizational level, there would appear to be no need to fork a separate "scientific" definition of the existing meaning, and no justification is given for this separate entry. The content itself reads like an opinion essay exploring a particular set of views (Jonas Salk), and a couple other (somewhat tenuous) connections. There is no reason to believe that this text represents or could reasonably be edited to represent a general, NPOV overview of "Meaning" in the "scientific" sense, even if such a separate article were to be deemed necessary. David Oberst 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nomination. As further comment and fair disclosure, this article is part of a range of similar problematic additions by the same editor (see User_talk:Stevenson-Perez#Your_contributions) in articles such as Jonas Salk, data ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Data&diff=115136666&oldid=115102729 diff]), Wisdom ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wisdom&diff=115148056&oldid=115134589 diff]) etc. -- David Oberst 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Oberst and per my comments at User_talk:Stevenson-Perez#Your_contributions. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Community of Practice. -- TedFrank 21:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 00:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per David Oberst & TedFrank, essay unconnected to mainstream of epistemology, ontology etc Pete.Hurd 05:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR and unencyclopedic personal essay. --MCB 07:20, 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.