Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad science methods

Bad science methods

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

This article is very unbalanced, and we don't really need an article with this title, given that we have other and better articles that cover essentially the same ground, notably scientific misconduct. This article as written cherry-picks every possible criticism of scientific methodology, mostly using primary sources, without any attempt at context. A redirect to bad science (a DAB page) would also be a viable solution. Note that the problems with this article have been discussed on its talk page and at WT:MED#Bad science methods. Looie496 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per OP. The article is rant that presents problems that are very real, but completely out of context. The most negative views that can be found in the literature are cherrypicked for inclusion in violation of WP:NPOV. While one could argue for attempting to edit this into some semblance of a reasonable article, I don't see it as salvagable, as "what is good is not new, and what is new is not good". Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 14:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Method of Science was an exhibition sometimes in 70s that gained lots of name, fame and controversy in India (described in this book). This article is nothing but reverse of that. Instead - an article named "Method in Science" or "Method of Science" could be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educationtemple (talk • contribs)
Delete This article is interesting and derives from at least one good secondary source, Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. However, Goldacre's book, like this article, is advocacy. The articles deserves to be read on a website such as medium.com or quora.com (if they will have it). But I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia, as I don't think there is a neutral way to write an article with this title. It will always tackle such a range of diverse topics, essentially from one angle. Publication bias for example, is vastly different from say scientific misconduct, and each deserves the full article it has to attempt to give it honest and fair treatment. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]