Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General methodology Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/General_methodology

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. LFaraone 19:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General methodology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is essentially a personal essay, offering an original analysis. Although the article gives a list of references, at best these refer only to individual details of the content of the article: there is no evidence that the overall concepts of the article has received any coverage. I said "at best", because in fact many of the "references" are not even citations to other works at all, but simply statements by the author of the article, such as "Liebniz's monadology is an ideal reflective scheme example", which is a statement of opinion, not a reference to a source. Thus the article constitutes original research, at best a synthesis of disconnected pieces, and at worst not even that, as much of the material looks to me to be completely novel. In addition to this, much of the article is incomprehensible. For example, it is very difficult to know what is intended to be the meaning of such sentences as "Special epistemological analysis shows, that form of fixation, reproducing and organisation of methodological knowledge is methodological scheme, leading every real human practice and activity", or "Development of Heuristics, Alternative Rationalities and Methodological Analysis program means that developed version of general methodology should provide instruments of analysis for at least next forms of rationality", etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was PRODDED by RHaworth, with the reason given as "essay hung on neologism", and the PROD notice was removed by the author without any explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanation was in fact given here. Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Uncle G. There was indeed some sort of attempt to explain it in the talk page post you have linked to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that it doesn't help that the article's creator is clearly not an L1 English speaker. The G. P. Shchedrovitsky mentioned in the article has a biography here in the Russian Wikipedia and an edited posthumous autobiography here, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW, the article's creator has now requested that -all- articles created by them be deleted, though I've pointed out that that may not be allowable per WP policies and tried to encourage them to reconsider their current grievances. See here. Doniago (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well he's never created anything else, so no worries there. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, xe has. Uncle G (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Poorly-sourced personal essay. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, you so short-sighted... I started this article only at 28.11. Do you really think 2 weeks is an adequate time 4 developing a philosophical or scientific article?))))) That is not serious approach, dude))... Oh! Sorry! I know! Very serious article is power of a method))))) Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why try and develop in public on Wikipedia? You have all the time in the world to develop it on your machine before publishing it on your own website. Also, in the terminology of Wikipedia, nothing associated with you has (yet) been blocked. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanx! It's a first constructive advice from you. You know what? The thing is general methodology is a project! It not a science - at least now, today. There is no general systems theory, it's a project too. Shchedrovitsky wrote about these. It was my strategic plan: write this generic article to find people - English-speaking philosophers, researches, scientists - to common developing of general methodology. It's simple: every theory stay on hypothetical status until it's haven't its defenders)))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamard Evitiatini (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it looks very much as though you mean that the article is written to attract people to a project of yours, so that they can take part in the project. If so then that is another reason for deleting it, as Wikipedia's policy is not to have articles that exist to promote anything, including your project. Your comment also seems to confirm that the article is original research, which was an important part of the reason for the deletion nomination. Wikipedia is not a medium for publishing original research. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • And you absolutely right! Delete it - as original SYN. In any case, it's useless. Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speakin' seriously, every science is just a project. Yesterday Newton was king of physics, tomorrow Einstein will be belonged to history of primordial concepts. That's it! Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essay hung on neologism as I said already. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? Don't you understand? These "neologism" was arise more than 50 years ago!! Look at references and external links! Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Incoherent essay. Perhaps it would be better for the author to create the page in a language in which he is fluent, and see how well it survives on the appropriate Wikipedia. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it so, why this page (article) has been viewed 1550 times from 01.12 to 13.12.?? It's o.k. 4 you? Just look statistics Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hamard, I'd respectfully suggest that you should focus on addressing the original concerns regarding the request for deletion rather than replying to every single person who feels the article may be appropriate for deletion. Bringing up things like page-views isn't going to change anything because it doesn't address the quality or appropriateness of the article itself. To an outside observer, you seem to be really defensive and not objective about the situation, and that doesn't help your case. In any event, the article's not going to be deleted instantly...maybe you should take a couple of hours to put together your reasons why you feel the article should be kept, and then come back and present them? Just trying to help... Doniago (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • ??? "Doniago"? Who are you? Are you qualified specialist in chemistry? Physics? Epistemology? Sorry, I just can't identify sort and status of your remarks. Thank you very-very much, but it's trouble. At least, your ideas very strange! With respect, Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just someone who's trying to help you become a better editor, and more importantly right now, make a better impression on your fellow editors. Doniago (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hamard's version in Russian: Общая методология has survived for eleven months. But I still say delete the English version. I hate to say this, but which translation is better: Hamard's or Google's? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you so good in translation, why don't you help me with that (or to correct this version) instead deletion this article? I though you, people, here to help authors - not to destroy Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original SYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Unintelligible presentation of the unidentifiable. EEng (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General (theoretical) methodology is a project of science to study methods in abstract. Sorry, where you find something "unidentifiable"? Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• O.k. I have a suggestion. Let you invite any competent expert - Ph.D. - who'll tell what to do with this. If he tell to keep the article, all of you will help us to make it more correct (at least, from linguistic point of view). It is a best way - better than stupidly and dully delete page, I swear by Zeus)) Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be perfectly happy to work towards improving rather than deleting the article, but there are two problems which make this impossible. One of the problems is that the article is in language so different from recognisable English as to be largely incomprehensible. I cannot correct your English because it is so bad that I honestly don't know what it is trying to say. The other problem is that, instead of trying to help other editors to understand so that they can help, you angrily dismiss anyone who says anything you disagree with. The only plausible possibility of saving this article from deletion is if you can help us to understand it. I am not promising that it will then be saved, just saying that it is very unlikely to be saved otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ok, man, I understood. 1) "there are two problems which make this impossible" - there are no problems, just some misunderstanding. Sorry, may be I was too aggressive. 2) "the article is in language so different from recognisable" - it's not a problem! you can always help me with that, and I can always help you with something in Russian: if I understood everything o.k., "wiki" is a greatest international project. If so, there is no any problems, dude!)) 3) "you angrily dismiss anyone who says anything you disagree with" - no! everything I ask is a expert suggestions - that's all. 4) "The only plausible possibility of saving this article from deletion is if you can help us to understand it" - O.k.! That is not a problem at all, - just ask me to. 5) "just saying that it is very unlikely to be saved otherwise" - sorry, dude, it's your personal comprehensions, I'll be glad to fix everything. With respect to all of you, Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although, if YOU ALL so STUPID to understand idea of this article, I can't make you able to. Sud off. Everything you able to - just to wipe letters from your keyboards. I'm sorry, wallies. Don't worry, die happy. With null respect, Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comes immediately after the previous comment from the same editor, in which they denied that they "angrily dismiss" those who disagree with them, and also apologised for maybe having been too aggressive previously?? The amazing thing is that, in the light of experience of this editor, I actually don't think it's meant to be a joke. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Sorry, this wrote my daughter, she is eight year old. I forgot to log out and she try to indulge))) Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator and most everyone else. Edward321 (talk) 23:42, 14 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.