Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misuse of Scientific Method in Social Sciences and Related Disciplines


 * 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 speedy delete under CSD G7 - Original poster of only significant content requested deletion in good faith. J.delanoy gabs adds 03:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of Scientific Method in Social Sciences and Related Disciplines

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Although this page is still marked "under construction", the direction it has taken so far is that of a personal opinion, or original research. Either way this page cannot become encyclopedic without a complete rewrite from scratch, even if properly referenced. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Greetings to all editors.


 * I just wrote this new article and the system immediately proposed that it should be deleted because (1) it is written as an essay, (2) supposedly includes original research, and (3) does not give any references. I deleted the tag for proposed deletion because I think these concerns can be either easily addressed or are incorrect.


 * Concern (1): Please feel free to give the article a more encyclopedic format. I am new to Wikipedia, so I don't see much of a difference between what I wrote and other short articles, though I must agree that my article is somewhat opinionated and, in that respect, needs improvement.


 * Concern (2): Even though it may at times look that way, the article does not include any original research. It simply describes how the scientific method is currently used (albeit incorrectly) in social sciences and some natural sciences. Again, please do not hesitate to make the article look more encyclopedic with respect to the illusion of original research.


 * Concern (3): The article does not cite any references because almost everything in it is common knowledge, and hence, according to academic standards does not require referencing. However, please feel free to add references to anything in the article, since this seems to be the rule in Wikipedia, even for common knowledge. For my part, I will try to add references, in the coming week, to the section on ecology, since it is not quite a common knowledge.


 * Thank you for your attention to this matter.--Q42Dqv (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q42Dqv (talk • contribs)


 * Delete - As far as I can tell this is an unsourced POV essay. Notes to Q42Dqv: Your remark "everything in it is common knowledge, and hence, according to academic standards does not require referencing" is interesting but doesn't meet WP requirements. You might want to read WP:V for background info on the matter. Furthermore, the article is basically a copy of your earlier posting here. You might also want to read WP:NPOV and WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks,   SIS   21:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would greatly appreciate if you guys helped me to improve the article instead of trying to condemn it. In fact, you guys are in a better position then me, to do so, because you guys are obviously more familiar with Wikipedia and its guidelines then me. Moreover, I think it is unfair to delete an encyclopedic article just because the person who started it is not very good in writing such articles. Wouldn't it be more constructive to improve it?--Q42Dqv (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete While style and structure of an article are rarely enough to warrant an article's deletion, notability is. If you cannot find published reports on this subject (i.e. primary sources), then this article does not belong on Wikipedia. For example, I could write an article on the misuse of doorknobs for back-scratchers, but that doesn't make my observations encyclopedic. Regardless, don't let this potential deletion put you off of writing on Wikipedia; just read up a little on how to contribute to the project and your help will be greatly appreciated!--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Aside from the extremely muddled nature of the argument, the article's very title displays the POV nature of the work. Such unsourced, OR essays are disallowed by basic Wikipedia guidelines. I would suggest that the author tries to contribute to 'criticisms of evolutionary psychology' or similar, but not bother unless they can bring reliable sources to the table. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is this essay does not conform to any of Wikipedia's core inclusion policies, it is not reliably sourced or verifiable, it is not neutral and it appears to be based entirely on original research. A complete rewrite would be required, presuming that the sourcing does exist. Guest9999 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is impossible for an article on the "misuse" of anything to conform to WP:NPOV, as everyone targeted would dispute that they "misuse" it.  Much has been written on social science methodology, but this essay doesn't refer to that literature — and even if it did, it would still be an essay.  An article could in principle be written on social science methodologies (plural), but it would have nothing in common with this one.   RJC  TalkContribs 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV essay. andy (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys for giving you all a head ache. I had a need to express my opinion on the subject, so I wrote this article without considering any of Wikipedia's rules. I realize that was unethical, so please delete this article as soon as possible because I am not sure about how to do it.--Q42Dqv (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2008 (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.