Talk:Fads and Fallacies in the Social Sciences

Lack of third party content
This article contains nothing but a couple of 'reviews' from the book's own back cover (the likes of which consensus, including on WP:RS/N, has tended to find unreliable). Lacking any third-party content to establish notability, I'll be redirecting it to its author's article shortly. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the article needs expansion. That's so obvious, it needs no tag to point it out. It is customary at Wiki not to delete articles without first attempting to gain consensus. Replacing articles by redirects and without consensus is vandalism, I trust you won't adopt such a rash course of action as you propose above. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Get it through your skull -- WP:REDIRECT is not deletion. Redirecting articles lacking any reliably-sourced content is not vandalism. Tagging it before redirecting it was merely a courtesy. You don't want the courtesy, then fine -- its redirected. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks.
 * No vandalism.
 * No edit warring.
 * Alastair Haines (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)