Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Causal Explanation and Research Design


 * 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 Userfy, moved to User:Aaron1509/Causal Explanation and Research Design. There are only 747 unique Ghits using the search terms given by Victor falk, so notability is indeed a question. The user, who is a new Wikipedian, admits it's a work in progress, so moving it into Aaron1509's user space protects it from deletion (somewhat) while it's improved. When it's fully fleshed out, it can be moved back into the mainspace. Krakatoa Katie  04:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Causal Explanation and Research Design

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm really not sure what this is supposed to be. I would have marked it as a nocontext speedy, but I feel like I'm missing something here. JuJube 23:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose "a work in progress" isn't acceptable. I'm trying to add a new article for something im interested in. Given the right amount of time i think this article will be useful to others with an interest in these areas. what can i do to keep this from being deleted? Aaron1509 23:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)\

I'm kinda neutral on this one. It can have good info, but at the same time, it does have some info that I think could be cut. —Signed by KoЯn fan71 My TalkSign Here! 00:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: Has some good (encyclopedic) info, which is referenced. Could use some work, but keep for now. - Rjd0060 00:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If it's kept, the article title should be changed to something more descriptive. JuJube 00:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I definitely agree with that. I'll try and come up with something, if kept. - Rjd0060 00:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: --Victor falk 03:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Userify, let the work continue, and eventually remerge with the main article namespace if appropriate. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is at the intersection of math and psychology. This is the dumbed down description. (Undumbing it down would probably improve the arrticle.)jonathon 08:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is a non-notable neogolism at best, or else a POV fork from Correlation does not imply causation. --Gavin Collins 21:53, 13 October 2007 (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.