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. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1970s in science[edit]

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

Delete. This is the the only article in a "decades in scince" series. Articles for 1970 in science, 1971 in science etc already exist. This articles and the years in science series are poorly maintained. To make maint easier and since there seems to be little interest in developing these articles the decade in science should be deleted. It will put the related category up for deletion as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not great at the moment, I see. But in attempting a high-level prose overview of a whole decade it does something different than the year articles. I don't think many casual readers would be that interested in the year articles, because they are too in-depth, granular, and listy. I think this format (even though it has not caught on yet to other decades) is better designed for readers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per Calliopejen1. also, there are 2 other decades in science articles: 1990s in science and technology and 2000s in science and technology. im going to add these to the category, and move this page over to a title reflective of the other two.Ryan shell (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I would like to see those articles merged elsewhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly a notable decade for science (actually, which decade isn't notable for its scientific achievements?). Currently this article seems to be attaining a higher level of quality than the articles on the individual years. Them From Space 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the claim that the 70s was of particular note especially if we look at the Enlightenment or we believe in accelerating change. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make the others. We can't do everything at once. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or concentrate on the series that is already set up? Decades in science would be a summary of years in science. If we build the years in science series into a more comprehensive set of articles we can then see it there is a need for a decades in science series of articles. We should try an improve why we already have. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure synthesis and original research. by trying to summarize the field without citations for who said this, its research. by grouping events together in a decade long pattern, its synthesis. unless all these statements can be backed by citations of notable science writers and historians (oh my god events from my memory are now solidly historic...), this article is not tenable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all the other keeps. The nominator seems to be on a mission to delete this for whatever reason. Thiste (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"whatever reason" is those as stated above and below. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comments. Firstly, I fully endorse the above comments by Mercurywoodrose. To do an article on the science of a particuar decade does not make sense unless it is a timeline or list of events rather than an analysis. A timeline of science would be too long. Breaking it into years is much better as has been done in the List of years in science. Potentially there could be a List of decades in science but that would be redundant since there is a already a list of years in science. Creating articles to do an analysis of science within a decade is setting arbitrary constraints. Science should be analysed within a field (eg History of genetics), a defined period of history (eg Science in the Age of Enlightenment) or any other method that has defined constraints. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a typical example of a helpful navigation article. It should renamed 1970s in science and technology and rewritten to follow the format of 1990s in science and technology and 2000s in science and technology. Here I'd to remind editors that poor quality is not a reason for deletion, but for improvement. Edit, don't delete. ^walk victor falk^talk 12:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the list of 1970s years in science links before I decided that deletion was a better option. The page could work as a list of events in the 1970s relating to science and tecnology (as it is now named) but the sythesi as metioned by UserThiste should go. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same as Victor Falk --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because this is the the only article in a "decades in science" series doesn't mean it should be deleted. Warrah (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can provide an effective overivew of progression in that decade. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 14:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Victor Falk. -- Jll (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are articles covering notable achievements and are exactly the type of article we should have on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2010 (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.