Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyewitness identification: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
I've nominated the article for deletion. The page is a serious breech of NPOV policies and is simply an anti-eyewitness rant. I would like to improve it but I believe the article is too biased to salvage. We would be better off rewriting it from scratch. --[[User:Armanalp|Armanalp]] ([[User talk:Armanalp|talk]]) 17:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
I've nominated the article for deletion. The page is a serious breech of NPOV policies and is simply an anti-eyewitness rant. I would like to improve it but I believe the article is too biased to salvage. We would be better off rewriting it from scratch. --[[User:Armanalp|Armanalp]] ([[User talk:Armanalp|talk]]) 17:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' The question here is whether the topic is [[WP:N|notable]]. [http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&tbo=p&q=%22eyewitness+identification%22&num=10#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks:1&q=%22eyewitness+identification%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=fc8aae4abccfd483 Hundreds of scholarly books] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=%22eyewitness+identification%22&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=14&hl=en thousands] of scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals about eyewitness testimony amply demonstrate that the subject has received "significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources." Rather than "delete and restart from scratch," try editing out anything which violates [[WP:NPOV]] or which has [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]. This does not mean that the position that "eyewitness testimony is nearly always right" should receive equal space. The information in the article is generally in accord with a vast number of published academic studies of the past 30 years or longer, showing that eyewitness testimony is often wrong, and that witnesses can be adamant their incorrect identification of an accused person. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 21:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' The question here is whether the topic is [[WP:N|notable]]. [http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&tbo=p&q=%22eyewitness+identification%22&num=10#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks:1&q=%22eyewitness+identification%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=fc8aae4abccfd483 Hundreds of scholarly books] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=%22eyewitness+identification%22&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=14&hl=en thousands] of scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals about eyewitness testimony amply demonstrate that the subject has received "significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources." Rather than "delete and restart from scratch," try editing out anything which violates [[WP:NPOV]] or which has [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]. This does not mean that the position that "eyewitness testimony is nearly always right" should receive equal space. The information in the article is generally in accord with a vast number of published academic studies of the past 30 years or longer, showing that eyewitness testimony is often wrong, and that witnesses can be adamant their incorrect identification of an accused person. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 21:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' an article on an important, albeit broad, topic. The current article isn't much good but it does provide valuable, well sourced information about eyewitnesses providing incorrect evidence. This is a very well documented field that would be easy to source, and so are the other areas that hsould be covered by this article but aren't.--[[User:Patton123|Patton123]] ([[User talk:Patton123|talk]]) 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:08, 8 January 2011
- Eyewitness identification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've nominated the article for deletion. The page is a serious breech of NPOV policies and is simply an anti-eyewitness rant. I would like to improve it but I believe the article is too biased to salvage. We would be better off rewriting it from scratch. --Armanalp (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The question here is whether the topic is notable. Hundreds of scholarly books and thousands of scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals about eyewitness testimony amply demonstrate that the subject has received "significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources." Rather than "delete and restart from scratch," try editing out anything which violates WP:NPOV or which has undue weight. This does not mean that the position that "eyewitness testimony is nearly always right" should receive equal space. The information in the article is generally in accord with a vast number of published academic studies of the past 30 years or longer, showing that eyewitness testimony is often wrong, and that witnesses can be adamant their incorrect identification of an accused person. Edison (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep an article on an important, albeit broad, topic. The current article isn't much good but it does provide valuable, well sourced information about eyewitnesses providing incorrect evidence. This is a very well documented field that would be easy to source, and so are the other areas that hsould be covered by this article but aren't.--Patton123 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)