Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case study in psychology


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Ase1este charge-paritytime 13:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Case study in psychology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A Case study page already exists. There is no reason why this particular topic can't be incorporated on that page. The other page has no size constraints. I fail to see the justification for a fork. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I fail to see the justification for this nomination as it provides no reason to delete. The topic is highly notable as numerous books have been written about it – a selection follows.  Particular cases in the field are quite famous and we have articles about them which this page lists.  For example, there's Phineas Gage so we should page  who perhaps merits a case study in his own right too. :)  As for the more general page, that is obviously a broad topic which has to address numerous other fields of study such as business, social science and so on. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Classic Case Studies in Psychology
 * Case Studies in Educational Psychology
 * Case Studies in Forensic Psychology
 * Case Studies in Clinical Psychological Science
 * ''Case Studies in Abnormal Psychology
 * Case Studies in Social Psychology
 * Introduction to Psychology Case Studies
 * Encyclopedia of Case Study Research
 * The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology
 * Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology


 * There's no substantive difference between the kinds of case studies that are done in psychology versus the other social sciences, even if each field may produce "how to" books that are specifically honed to students in their own disciplines (note that the best work is however done by general methods books or general case study books). None of the books you cited are cited on the "Case study in psychology" article. The books that are cited are the very same general case study publications as are cited in the main article. The "Case study in psychology" article has barely any content. Of the content that's included, there are unsourced falsehoods (e.g. case studies can't prove causation). One reason why having a trillion forks is unwise is precisely because it leads to a duplication of content, as well as a dispersal of effort across many articles, which leads to errors and sloppy content. Wouldn't it be wiser to elaborate on whatever case study cultures exist in different fields on the main page, and then fork those sections when they grow too large and detailed? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia of Case Study Research demonstrates that there's a huge amount of ground to cover as it runs to more than one volume, covering numerous particular fields as separate encyclopedic topics. If we try to cover diverse topics like medicine and feminism under one heading, we are likely to get muddle and improper synthesis.  It is better to stick to particular fields and build up, rather than down.  And, as someone has made a start on this particular field and it is so clearly notable, we should stick with what we have.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that the different titles represent different kinds of reports, or merely a convenient way of organizing them according to the nature of the subject. (If there were volumes Case studies 1920-1950 and Case studies 1951-1980 we certainly wouldn't have a separate article for each one.) I'm not saying I'm sure, just that our default should to a single common page from which specialized pages can be spun off when the evidence supports it. See my post just below here. EEng 20:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking merge to case report (which is specifically about medical cases). Clearly a business case is nothing like a medical case, but it's a good guess that medical cases, psychology cases, and so on are more similar than different, and are best treated together (see WP:NOPAGE). I'd take that as the default unless a highly authoritative source says, "Case studies in psychology differ from those in medicine in the following important ways ..." and those differences are so large that they can't be incorporated into a common page.In response to a mention above, I am the subject of several case studies in the areas of medicine, abnormal psychology, criminology, and social decay, but national security regulations require that they remain sealed until the year 2080. EEng 20:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or, in the alternative, merge to Case report. I'm not seeing why a split is necessary here, when this could easily become a section of the wider article. Neutralitytalk 22:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Case studies in psychology are distinct from medical case reports, just based on the descriptions in each article, and the case report article mentions how they are typically not case studies, so a merger does not seem logical from a navigational standpoint. Also, the Case study article does not seem to be written in a way that easily lends itself to incorporating the contents of this article into it, and it might introduce confusion about the topic if it was merged at this time - the case study article is currently tagged with 'expert needed,' and the note "Case studies have numerous definitions in different fields and are intertwined with similar concepts in those fields" and a quick review of the sources seems to suggest why - there are sources from a variety of disciplines combined together, including business, political science, and social sciences generally, without this being made clear in the article. At some point in the future, if there is a reorganization and rewrite of the case study article, a merge might make sense to consider. I empathize with the instinct of the nom, but I think it is premature to consider a merge before a major revision or WP:TNT of the case study article. Beccaynr (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Reading both articles there is clear difference. I just added another famous case study to the list in this article.  Reliable sources do cover "case studies in psychology" such as https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/denial-science-chris-mooney/   D r e a m Focus  05:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: As prior discussed, this is a reasonable split from Case study. Psychology produces a particular amount of case studies, distinct from medical ones, and Case study itself has some synthesis issues already. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this doesn't seem to be a request for deletion, just a request to merge. I don't see a merge improving either Case study or Case report. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep Current article content is, frankly, annoying - a lede full of commonplaces that apply to all case studies in whatever discipline, and two one-sentence sections that are even more so. This stuff would not be worth an article. The saving grace is the list of notable psychology case studies, which although a subjective selection, is probably a useful reference tool. Might be better off renamed to "Notable psychology case studies", but it kinda works under the current title, so might as well stick with it. Definitely needs more text that could not have come off a cereal package though. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:41, 17 February 2021 (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.