Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad 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, for now, though little consensus in what form, and User:Kubigula raises the central concern of verifiability (obviously the term exists, but if we can't get a coherent picture of what exactly it means, we can't even start to write a verified article), but there hasn't been any other discussion on that one way or the other. It's somewhat difficult to image a nomination like this, a malformed objection to this redirection, actually resulting in deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad science

 * Oppose -- This article should definatly not be deleted nor should it be a redirect page. The term "bad science," is used by the scientific community to describe "scientific findings" arrived at without proper scientific procedure, and does not exclusivly refer to Goldacre's writing. Mrwuggs 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with junk science and pseudoscience. (I am tempted to suggest that about 80% of Wikipedia "science" articles should be replaced with semi-protected redirects to pseudoscience; but that would be rather cranky of me, wouldn't it?)  Michael K. Edwards 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to junk science. This article is completely unreferenced; it has the appearance of original research. For that reason I am not in favour of a merge. --Lambiam Talk  17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Reading the article will disclose that Bad science includes Junk science and pseudo science as subtypes,along with other aberrations. There are many kinds of bad science that are far from pseudoscience. Pseudoscientists are usually lacking scientific credentials and lack a university setting, but bad scientists may have credentials and be at a university. Some use "bad science" as a term of art to discount things like global warming or statistical sampling to estimate the civilian death count in Iraq. Senator Inhofe said of global warming: 'Mann's results are "based on using end points in computing changes in an oscillating series" and are " just bad science." I repeat: "just bad science."' A large proportion of published research and textbook content qualifies as bad science. Bad science is a good title for an umbrella article encompassing an overview of all its branch articles. Someone comfortable with philosophy of science and Epistemology has to wrestle some heavy references to back up the text of such an article. All the related articles are presently a bit lightweight except Pseudoscience, which appears broadly references, but too specific to absorb Bad science.Edison 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article could certainly use some attention from a good editor as mentioned above, but it's worth keeping. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Perhaps something could be done with it, but, unfortunately, the real definition of bad science is "science I don't agree with".  There isn't a global, acceptable, definition.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. This AfD is still incomplete in that it is not clear who nominated it for deletion or what reasons the nominator had. --Bduke 00:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, it isn't.  (Not remembering whether I was the one who put the AfD on...) Consider it procedural, unless someone accidently deleted the nomination reason.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to junk science.150.203.177.218 05:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Arthur Rubin. The article lacks references or citation and I could not find any universal understanding of what constitutes "bad science". -Kubigula (ave) 01:01, 19 October 2006 (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.