Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure sociology

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pure sociology

Although Donald Black is noteable, every term he used in an original (or non-original) way is not an "invention" of his. Fancruft. KillerChihuahua 13:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this article, but it is not fancruft. Pure Sociology is an entirely new way to conduct sociology, as detailed in the article. It was very much an invention of Black's, and did not exist previously. However, it is no longer an activity of one man, but has a growing school of practitioners which has developed over the past 30 years. More importantly, and more germane to Wikipedia and AfD policy, it is a subject worthy of its own article, distinct from a merge into Black's biography, and ready for further development as others contribute. I have already extensively revised and extended the article from the short piece nominated for deletion, and am certain that continued development of it will further justify its presence in Wikipedia. Per AfD policy, "If in doubt, don't delete." Airumel 21:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There's just one problem, which is that you haven't cited any sources. Unverifiable articles get deleted regardless of any questions of truth, notability, quality, and so on! If you could add some references, to published books and articles and the like, that we can use to check this information, then I think it's quite likely that this article could be kept. — Haeleth Talk 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Understood. Will do so this evening. Airumel 23:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Have added references to the three primary sources on the idea. Have also added references on the Donald Black article to others that have used his ideas, including this one. Will next add further entries to the Donald Black article on detractors and unsuccessful tests of some of his ideas, will subgroup the references there (his work, others' use, and critics), and will reference the latter 2 groups of those here. Respectfully request that nom be withdrawn. Airumel 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I see no reason why this article should be deleted, particularly not now that Airumel has expanded it and added references. KillerChihuahua's nomination appears to suggest s/he believes Black did not invent this approach - but even if that were the case, it would be a reason to correct the article, not to delete it. (And I will note in passing that such limited research as I've been able to conduct for myself, with the help of Google Book Search, has left me with the impression that the article is accurate.) — Haeleth Talk 20:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Pure sociology is a noteworthy approach in sociology, regardless if one agrees with it or not. It would perhaps be better to write that Donald Black 'developed' the approach, rather than invented, since it is built on the work of otrhers as well. But by its own aspirations, the approach is indeed very different (whether it actually is that different is up for debate). —the preceding unsigned comment is by Deflem (talk • contribs)

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.