Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qualitative and quantitative
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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--Kubigula (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Qualitative and quantitative
Delete unsourced comparison of two dictionary definitions and how they may be used in chemistry Carlossuarez46 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Belongs as part of analytical chemistry (which already has a section on this), not as a separate page. --Mkativerata 01:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect To analytical chemistry. There is an entry, but it doesn't really define it. So use Quantitative analysis (chemistry), Qualitative inorganic analysis and this article to flesh out that section, and redirect the other two I mentioned. i said 02:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strongest possible do not redirect to any chemistry topic. These terms are widely used in many fields and represent fundamentally different forms of analysis. For example, research studies in sociology might be quantitative or qualitative. These are fundamental distinctions. The page as it stands is fairly useless, but I would suggest it be kept as a disambig for, e.g., Qualitative method, Social_research, Quantitative_analysis_(chemistry), Methodology, etc etc. If I have a minute later today I will be bold and try to edit it thusly. bikeable (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Disambigufy, per bikeable.--Victor falk 05:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant with qualitative research and quantitative research (the distinction is fairly simple, so I don't think it warrants its own article). If kept, I'd suggest renaming to Qualitative and quantitative research to clearly distinguish from non-technical uses of the terms (which are very much related, but substantially broader). Oppose redirect to anything chemistry-based; the terms are perhaps most often used in chemistry (excluding non-technical uses), but uses in other contexts are valid and significant as well. — xDanielx T/C 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would !vote to disambigify or redirect, but this doesn't strike me as a common search term. Delete as dicdef, as noted above, the information exists elsewhere. shoy 16:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
