Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reconstructive observation

: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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

=[[Reconstructive observation]]=

:{{la|Reconstructive observation}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reconstructive_observation Stats])

:({{Find sources|Reconstructive observation}})

Completing nomination on behalf of IP user 108.223.133.136 (talk). Reason given at WT:AFD is: "I believe the entry should be deleted because it has both been a stub and an an orphan for four years, and as such is clearly unrelated or unimportant to its field. The two main authors that the article mentioned are not notable in the field of the article or elsewhere, and its two citations (one attributed to Geertz and the other to Reik) are poor." I remain neutral. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Per WP:DEL-REASON an article being a stub and an orphan are not valid deletion arguments. Also, the assessment of the two sources in the article as "poor" is ambiguous, because there's no qualification about how or why they are considered "poor". Likewise for the notion of the topic being "unimportant to its field." I've left a talkback notification on the IP's talk page to notify the initial nominator about this discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete Article seems to be a reasonless rambling --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 03:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 31 August 2012 (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.