Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad science methods
- 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bad science methods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (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)
- 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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete Unbalanced and malformed title: the article bad science is a DAB page and the term bad science methods is not used. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Better covered elsewhere already, poorly formed title, unbalanced. Most sources don't discuss "bad science methods" as a subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - It's just not written like an encyclopedia article, it's more like a journalistic expose. I've copied the content into a word document because the basic idea is great and I think valid. I intend to search the encyclopedia to see if its content can be inserted into already existing articles with the same idea. I hate to see so much effort go to waste with all the research done to compile the references and other information.
- Delete nice effort, but I don't think it belongs here. It is almost like a how to, and I think WP:NOTGUIDE applies. The list is potentially endless, a better article would be about correct scientific technique. I am somewhat reminded of the barometer question, something that sounds bad could be good, and vice versa. Martin451 17:51, 20 April 2015 (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.