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

Misuse of Scientific Method in Social Sciences and Related Disciplines

Misuse of Scientific Method in Social Sciences and Related Disciplines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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[1]. 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)