Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong inference plus

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. W.marsh 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong inference plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Prod removed, so here we are. Argument was made for notability due to being published in The Scientist magazine. However, it was NOT published as 'peer-reviewed research' or the like, just as an opinion piece/essay, making it strictly original research. All 11 Google hits trace back to the (2-year old) paper, suggesting it hasn't gained currency beyond the creator, a WP:SPA that created the Wikipedia version. Ravenna1961 03:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Appears to be original research, and I can't find didly on the web. - Rjd0060 04:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete unlike Rjd0060, I do find some action on the web, it is being talked about on bioinformatics blogs... However, the ISI WOS lists the publication, and it has received zero citations thusfar. Notability may come for this topic, but I see no evidence of it yet from any reliable source. I'm mildly tempted to suggest merging with Strong inference, but know too little about the topics, and can't really endorse merging an article failing WP:N into anything else. Pete.Hurd 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment note also that some material in the article, e.g. the consecutive sentences

  "3. Reject hypotheses by experimental observations until a single hypothesis remains that has survived an experimental test by which it could have been rejected. The remaining hypothesis is the “currently held view” of the “cause” of the observation. To the laity, the remaining hypothesis is "truth,” but the scientist knows that this currently-held view can change if new hypotheses arise from new knowledge."

  in the WP article are lifted verbatim from the The Scientist article. Pete.Hurd 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It may not satisfy strict application of notability/WP:OR, but I still don't agree with deletion. I used a very similar methodology in my own research (although it predates the article under review). If someone has seen the method under a different name I'd be interested to hear. Ironically, none of the articles on scientific method here on Wikipedia actually describe a generalised method, they focus on subproblems like the hypothetico-deductive method or exploratory data analysis. Strong inference plus is different in this respect as it captures more of the scientific process. Pgr94 05:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Strong inference plus" may well be a useful technique, per Pgr94, but it's not notable yet. The apparent plagiarism mentioned by Pete.Hurd needs to be taken care of, in any case. Tim Ross·^talk 20:39, 21 November 2007 (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.