Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objective approach

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 . ✗plicit 23:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Objective approach

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:OR. A merge into Objectivity was proposed all the way back in 2006, but that is (and was) a disambiguation page. We have Objectivity (science) and Objectivity (philosophy), but I'm not sure that one is obviously more appropriate for a redirect than the other. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:OR. Karl Popper used the term. But I doubt that an entire article on it is justified. Apart from Popper it seems to be used mostly as a buzz word used to assert some kind of scientific superiority. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The comment about being a "buzz word" seems to fit well. No objection to a consensus merge of properly sourced material that can also show the term in context in the target article. // Timothy :: talk 08:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:FORK, OR, WP:NEO, and WP:NOTESSAY. Besides the other issues, sourcing this would require an entire re-write. Whoever created and wrote this has the super ability to make a content fork, original research, and an essay about a buzz word, all in one. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.