Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpretive science

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretive science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Violation of WP:NOR's WP:SYNTH Policy, the entire point is to propose the Scientist are incapable of understanding all the information (I.E. God's plan) and that means they are ignoring Alternative explanations.(IE divine creation.) Only two sources utilize the term "Interpretive science" and only then as a Synonymous for Qualtative research. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable subject matter with no dedicated research or publications. Foot-in-the-door POV fork. The concepts presented are already covered at social constructionism, normative and qualitative research. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It strikes me that this topic could be greatly expanded on. There are issues, but that is no reason to delete it out of hand. I am unaware of what universe these editors are getting the idea that this is somehow a Creationist Uber Plot to Take Over the World. Some of the sources may violate SYNTH, but none are from fringe sources. I would suggest that they peruse WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Novus Orator 02:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article which attempts to justify the methods of pseudoscience. Sources do not justify article as noted by Binksternet. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom & Binksternet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Qualitative research -- WP:Synthesis-ridden WP:CFORK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Snowded ^TALK 06:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of sources which cover this topic. Note that when reviewing the sources, one should also allow for the alternative title of interpretive research. The topic is therefore notable. The claim of synthesis seems very weak as there is little evidence of the supposed synthetic proposition. This and other issues are best address by ordinary editing not deleteion per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Term used in sufficient books as to warrant an article. Disputes over exact content belong on the article talk page, not here. Weber should be sufficient, to say the least. Many other uses of the term are found [1], [2] etc. It is quite misleading to claim that "only two sources use the term" for sure. [3] used as a term by psychology journals. [4] term published by major RS publishers. Therefore the term is widely used and notable. Again - AfD is not the place for content disputes. Collect (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The cited Weber passage describes sociology as an "interpretative science", rather than stating that there is an independent topic of that name. Nor do any of the other citations appear to define "interpretative science" as an independent topic (e.g. from Quantitative research). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• With well over eight hundred uses of the term on Google Scholar (not Google or Googlebooks), and with many appearing to be using the term in a consistent manner, your argument applies, at best, to a content dispute and not a notability issue. And again, the claim that "only two sources" use the term is clearly erroneous. Collect (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (i) Google Scholar also has approx 1.6 million hits on "general theory" -- and with that many, I'd be surprised if many weren't "appearing to be using the term in a consistent manner" by simple random probability. That does not however mean that we should have an article (rather than a mere disambiguation page) on that topic. (ii) You have not demonstrated that "interpretative science" is a topic independent of qualitative research (with the former often used as though it is a synonym for the latter), which has 800,000 Google Scholar hits, and already has a more extensive article lacking WP:SYNTH concerns. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Interpretive theory" is a lot more specific to this article than "general theory" is to any article at all. The usage in psychology, moreover, is quite sufficient indeed to meet notability requirements. AfD is a poor place to have content disputes settled. Your issues are properly settled on the article talk page, and not here. Collect (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• An AfD is a perfectly appropriate venue to discuss content F-O-R-K-I-N-G, particularly where the "contents" of one side of the fork are highly problematical -- so kindly cease and desist your argumentum ad nauseum about taking this to article talk. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• actually Wikipedia:MADEUPINONEDAY would be better applicable, since this term is real term used in as a synonym to qualitative research but the article content itself is a totally new use of the term thus I nominated it for deletion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And per WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." SnottyWong ^communicate 23:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- looks to me to be a classic case of WP:SYNTH- the "definitions" section with all those quotes selectively mined and lined up to produce the argument is a telltale sign. Many of the sources seem unrelated to the subject and serve only to introduce what looks to be a Creationist POV. Combine that with the total failure of the article to explain just what "interpretive science" actually is and how it works, and it becomes clear that this is not a real article at all and probably can never be one. Reyk _YO! 00:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed using a 400 year old Issac Newton book as a source in any contemporary science article is a redflag The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From what I see on Google books and Google Scholar results, this is easily verified as a real thing. If the subject is notable, then the article should be kept. If you have a problem with the current content of the article, discuss it on the talk page. Dream Focus 05:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or change to redirect to qualitative research. The term in sociology is standard and widespread and is covered in qualitative research. Its use in the physical or biological sciences is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and unsupported by any WP:RS. Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What a mess of synthesis. Perhaps for the second time in almost four years, I say delete and start over, or userfy. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^verbalize 23:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Obvious content fork, obvious synth issues, obvious non-notable neologism which is not being widely used by anyone. Some editors above are claiming lots of google hits on "interpretive science" or "interpretive research", but these google hits do not prove that the science community uses this term with any particular meaning in mind. It is merely a noun and an adjective put together to describe something else, not a widely recognized scientific methodology. Redirect to one of the abovementioned forks may be appropriate. SnottyWong ^verbalize 23:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR etc, etc, if not outright WP:CB. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to qualitative research or social constructionism. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - per nom, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. HairyWombat 18:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although it is very difficult to discern the meaning from many of the jargon-heavy Google Scholar references, I believe that neither "interpretative science" nor "interpretive science" have a consistent meaning. The words are used in many different contexts with approximately (or quite often not) their dictionary meanings. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough independent sources to show this is anything more than a WP:NEO or misused phrase. Google hits are not a valid measure of a subject's notability. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. WAYNESLAM 21:12, 30 December 2010 (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.