| Revision as of 21:37, 5 October 2008 editQ42Dqv (talk | contribs)45 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:38, 5 October 2008 edit undoQ42Dqv (talk | contribs)45 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)</small> | ||
| 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 Misplaced Pages 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?--] (]) 21:37, 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 Misplaced Pages 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?--] (]) 21:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:38, 5 October 2008
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 -- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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,
SIS21:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- 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,
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - /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 Misplaced Pages 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)