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The result was Withdrawn following the rewrite. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous science[edit]

Indigenous science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Advocacy article with no evidence of notability. The first two sources are not reliable. The third source is essentially primary in this context (being used to as "proponent" of the conspiracy theory) and does not by my reading express opposition to the scientific method. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article on astrology also calls its subject matter pseudoscientific, does that make it an advocacy article? Partofthemachine (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, because there are multiple reliable sources debunking the concept of astrology provided there. This article does not have that, and the fourth source you just added, in addition to being primary, isn't even talking about the same thing that you claim the third source is a "proponent of". This article is WP:SYNTH of unrelated sources to make a point, and astrology is not. (Nor are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments valid at AfD anyway) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is absolutely not WP:SYNTH because the first two sources I cited (both of which are written by reputable scientists) explicitly state that IS is not science. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, if you think this subject is appropriate for an article, but disagree with the content of it, you should discuss that on the talk page instead of nominating it for deletion. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Come on man, it is trivial to find good, peer-reviewed publications on this topic [1][2][3][4]. What this article needs is throwing out the rubbish sources currently present, integration of some solid academic sources, and then a rewrite that gets away from the finger-wagging "PSEUDOSCIENCE!" focus; this concept is principally one of traditional knowledge preservation and post-colonial cultural integration. This is an indigenous science project. We are ill served with a knee-jerk stub culled from newspaper headlines. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm going to come back later today and fix this article. This article as it stands now is just lazy and offensive. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 17:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok I've finished a rough rewrite of the article. I'll try to find some more time later to improve it more. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:34, 7 August 2022 (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.