Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonsense math effect

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. Michig (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense math effect

Nonsense math effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article is about a single mathematical paper with no references other to that paper. Notability unclear. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Delete It is a single peer-reviewed paper, but it seems to have made a splash in the media. Sources I found:

1. article about the paper at the Wall Street Journal web site
2. article at Forbes.com
3. article at Psychology Today
4. short article at Mother Jones
5. blog posting at Economic Policy Journal

The first three sources are independent articles from reliable publishers and are in depth. The Mother Jones article is a little short to be in depth. The blog at EPJ may be more reliable than a typical blog because there is probably some sort of editorial review, but I couldn't vouch for reliability. The multiple reliable sources suggest that this paper is notable. From a science POV, the results have not been reproduced, so I would be cautious about their validity. But from a Wikipedia POV, the notability suggests that this article be kept. Update: Mike Agricola's argument that this article is about the effect, not the paper, and that the effect is only single sourced is convincing. I've changed my vote to delete. Once other sources become available, re-creation of the article is reasonable. --Mark viking (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - At this point, what we have a is a blip of coverage of a scientific study. This represent routine coverage that one often finds from studies sych as the umpteenth study showing some food item prevents/causes cancer etc. What hasn't been established whether this congitive bias has made an impact and at this point, it is simply too soon to tell. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

---

• Weak Delete: Although the topic has received some media attention, the media reports mostly just describe the conclusions of Kimmo Eriksson's paper. Essentially that makes the topic "single source" from the standpoint of WP:DIVERSE and WP:GNG. As the paper was published very recently, it's too early to know what lasting impact it will have and whether it will spur additional research (so WP:TOOSOON may apply). An additional (independent) source discussing the topic may already exist: "Friedrich Hayek in his important book, The Counter Revolution of Science, argued that social scientists, who employed empirical mathematical techniques, suffered from an inferiority complex by attempting to mimic the physical sciences, when the social sciences are of a different nature." [1] The description given is a bit too vague to determine if the book directly touches upon the subject at hand, but it seems to be worth looking into if anyone can access a copy of the work. At any rate, my "delete" is without prejudice to the re-creation of the article if and when other sources, independent of Eriksson's paper, become available. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. The multiple RS reporting on the paper might make the paper notable, but the underlying effect the paper is investigating only has that paper as a source, and so the article on the effect fails by being only single sourced. I understand that reasoning. I agree that the Hayek reference is perhaps too vague to support this article. Any number of lit crit sources I've read mention schools like Structuralism and Deconstructionism being due in part to a desire to employ techniques from the quantitative sciences, but all these are more appropriate to a more general Math envy in the social sciences article. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2013 (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.