Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientific howlers in literature

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.--Hús ö nd 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientific howlers in literature[edit]

Delete - I'm reasonably sure we deleted some bloopers articles in the last several days (looking for them but not finding them). Regardless, rather a crufty collection of trivia. If the subject has an article then perhaps some of the information could be merged individually but the article should go. Otto4711 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in addition because of obviously POV title.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as above. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 05:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, OR and POV. (Jules Verne's information is in fact correct. The fact that it is not complete or all-encompassing does not make it a "howler".) Fan-1967 15:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Rudjek 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary and trivial.-- danntm ^T _C 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was fun in 2004, but it was listcruft even then. Blame me for the Jules Verne, Jack London, and John P. Marquand examples. (I still think Jules Verne was essentially wrong, because in his novel, regardless of the niceties of definition. the Columbians only float within or relative to the capsule for a short part of the trip). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hard to see how it could be decided what goes on this list without editors making judgment calls. Seraphimblade 09:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fiction has crappy science at times. No one cares as long as it doesn't completely destroy the suspension of disbelief (and if it does, it'd probably be best discussed in the article about the work of fiction itself, which is the point of my comment here). If you want good science, go read a research paper or something. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. --Duke of Duchess Street 18:47, 14 January 2007 (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.