430:
books or general case study books). None of the books you cited are cited on the "Case study in psychology" article. The books that are cited are the very same general case study publications as are cited in the main article. The "Case study in psychology" article has barely any content. Of the content that's included, there are unsourced falsehoods (e.g. case studies can't prove causation). One reason why having a trillion forks is unwise is precisely because it leads to a duplication of content, as well as a dispersal of effort across many articles, which leads to errors and sloppy content. Wouldn't it be wiser to elaborate on whatever case study cultures exist in different fields on the main page, and then fork those sections when they grow too large and detailed?
301:
572:
have numerous definitions in different fields and are intertwined with similar concepts in those fields" and a quick review of the sources seems to suggest why - there are sources from a variety of disciplines combined together, including business, political science, and social sciences generally, without this being made clear in the article. At some point in the future, if there is a reorganization and rewrite of the case study article, a merge might make sense to consider. I empathize with the instinct of the nom, but I think it is premature to consider a merge before a major revision or
316:
I fail to see the justification for this nomination as it provides no reason to delete. The topic is highly notable as numerous books have been written about it – a selection follows. Particular cases in the field are quite famous and we have articles about them which this page lists. For example,
689:
case studies in whatever discipline, and two one-sentence sections that are even more so. This stuff would not be worth an article. The saving grace is the list of notable psychology case studies, which although a subjective selection, is probably a useful reference tool. Might be better off renamed
450:
demonstrates that there's a huge amount of ground to cover as it runs to more than one volume, covering numerous particular fields as separate encyclopedic topics. If we try to cover diverse topics like medicine and feminism under one heading, we are likely to get muddle and improper synthesis. It
429:
There's no substantive difference between the kinds of case studies that are done in psychology versus the other social sciences, even if each field may produce "how to" books that are specifically honed to students in their own disciplines (note that the best work is however done by general methods
526:
those differences are so large that they can't be incorporated into a common page.In response to a mention above, I am the subject of several case studies in the areas of medicine, abnormal psychology, criminology, and social decay, but national security regulations require that they remain sealed
571:
article does not seem to be written in a way that easily lends itself to incorporating the contents of this article into it, and it might introduce confusion about the topic if it was merged at this time - the case study article is currently tagged with 'expert needed,' and the note "Case studies
566:
Case studies in psychology are distinct from medical case reports, just based on the descriptions in each article, and the case report article mentions how they are typically not case studies, so a merger does not seem logical from a navigational standpoint. Also, the
477:
we certainly wouldn't have a separate article for each one.) I'm not saying I'm sure, just that our default should to a single common page from which specialized pages can be spun off when the evidence supports it. See my post just below here.
514:(which is specifically about medical cases). Clearly a business case is nothing like a medical case, but it's a good guess that medical cases, psychology cases, and so on are more similar than different, and are best treated together (see
408:
415:
209:
401:
451:
is better to stick to particular fields and build up, rather than down. And, as someone has made a start on this particular field and it is so clearly notable, we should stick with what we have. My !vote stands.
690:
to "Notable psychology case studies", but it kinda works under the current title, so might as well stick with it. Definitely needs more text that could not have come off a cereal package though. --
244:
page already exists. There is no reason why this particular topic can't be incorporated on that page. The other page has no size constraints. I fail to see the justification for a fork.
593:
Reading both articles there is clear difference. I just added another famous case study to the list in this article. Reliable sources do cover "case studies in psychology" such as
203:
170:
261:
281:
143:
138:
147:
117:
102:
130:
300:
224:
671:
373:
191:
394:
359:
446:
380:
366:
352:
97:
90:
17:
387:
65:
702:
522:
authoritative source says, "Case studies in psychology differ from those in medicine in the following important ways ..."
185:
134:
469:
of reports, or merely a convenient way of organizing them according to the nature of the subject. (If there were volumes
707:
677:
644:
619:
585:
558:
538:
489:
460:
439:
342:
293:
273:
253:
72:
111:
107:
181:
640:
435:
249:
724:
456:
338:
289:
40:
231:
652:
this doesn't seem to be a request for deletion, just a request to merge. I don't see a merge improving either
126:
78:
554:. I'm not seeing why a split is necessary here, when this could easily become a section of the wider article.
594:
329:
who perhaps merits a case study in his own right too. :) As for the more general page, that is obviously a
665:
720:
636:
431:
245:
36:
197:
452:
334:
285:
269:
217:
581:
333:
which has to address numerous other fields of study such as business, social science and so on.
698:
661:
86:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
719:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
597:
515:
631:. Psychology produces a particular amount of case studies, distinct from medical ones, and
685:
Current article content is, frankly, annoying - a lede full of commonplaces that apply to
555:
330:
533:
484:
265:
54:
577:
573:
59:
692:
318:
305:
164:
657:
551:
508:
653:
632:
628:
568:
241:
528:
479:
324:
595:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/denial-science-chris-mooney/
280:
Note: This discussion has been included in the
Article Rescue Squadron's
465:
It's not clear to me that the different titles represent different
299:
715:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
160:
156:
152:
627:: As prior discussed, this is a reasonable split from
216:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
727:). No further edits should be made to this page.
260:Note: This discussion has been included in the
262:list of Psychology-related deletion discussions
374:Case Studies in Clinical Psychological Science
230:
8:
118:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
635:itself has some synthesis issues already.
279:
259:
518:). I'd take that as the default unless a
282:list of content for rescue consideration
409:The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology
395:Introduction to Psychology Case Studies
416:Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology
360:Case Studies in Educational Psychology
7:
447:Encyclopedia of Case Study Research
402:Encyclopedia of Case Study Research
381:Case Studies in Abnormal Psychology
367:Case Studies in Forensic Psychology
353:Classic Case Studies in Psychology
24:
388:Case Studies in Social Psychology
103:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
708:19:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
678:18:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
645:07:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
620:05:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
586:03:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
559:22:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
539:20:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
490:20:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
461:19:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
440:19:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
343:19:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
294:10:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
274:14:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
254:14:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
73:13:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
576:of the case study article.
93:(AfD)? Read these primers!
744:
717:Please do not modify it.
546:or, in the alternative,
127:Case study in psychology
79:Case study in psychology
32:Please do not modify it.
475:Case studies 1951-1980
471:Case studies 1920-1950
309:
527:until the year 2080.
303:
91:Articles for deletion
306:cone of uncertainty
55:(non-admin closure)
505:I'm thinking merge
321:so we should page
310:
706:
296:
276:
108:Guide to deletion
98:How to contribute
57:
735:
696:
695:
674:
668:
637:Vaticidalprophet
616:
613:
610:
607:
604:
601:
432:Snooganssnoogans
328:
246:Snooganssnoogans
235:
234:
220:
168:
150:
88:
62:
53:
34:
743:
742:
738:
737:
736:
734:
733:
732:
731:
725:deletion review
691:
672:
666:
614:
611:
608:
605:
602:
599:
322:
177:
141:
125:
122:
85:
82:
71:
60:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
741:
739:
730:
729:
711:
710:
683:Reluctant keep
680:
647:
622:
588:
561:
541:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
422:
421:
420:
419:
412:
405:
398:
391:
384:
377:
370:
363:
356:
346:
345:
298:
297:
277:
238:
237:
174:
121:
120:
115:
105:
100:
83:
81:
76:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
740:
728:
726:
722:
718:
713:
712:
709:
704:
700:
694:
688:
684:
681:
679:
675:
669:
663:
659:
655:
651:
648:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
623:
621:
618:
617:
596:
592:
589:
587:
583:
579:
575:
570:
565:
562:
560:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
540:
537:
536:
532:
531:
525:
521:
517:
513:
512:
506:
503:
502:
491:
488:
487:
483:
482:
476:
472:
468:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
449:
448:
443:
442:
441:
437:
433:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
418:
417:
413:
411:
410:
406:
404:
403:
399:
397:
396:
392:
390:
389:
385:
383:
382:
378:
376:
375:
371:
369:
368:
364:
362:
361:
357:
355:
354:
350:
349:
348:
347:
344:
340:
336:
332:
326:
320:
315:
312:
311:
307:
302:
295:
291:
287:
283:
278:
275:
271:
267:
263:
258:
257:
256:
255:
251:
247:
243:
233:
229:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
183:
180:
179:Find sources:
175:
172:
166:
162:
158:
154:
149:
145:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
123:
119:
116:
113:
109:
106:
104:
101:
99:
96:
95:
94:
92:
87:
80:
77:
75:
74:
70:
68:
63:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
716:
714:
686:
682:
662:power~enwiki
649:
624:
598:
590:
563:
547:
543:
534:
529:
523:
519:
510:
504:
485:
480:
474:
470:
466:
445:
414:
407:
400:
393:
386:
379:
372:
365:
358:
351:
319:Phineas Gage
313:
239:
227:
221:
213:
206:
200:
194:
188:
178:
84:
69:harge-parity
66:
49:
47:
31:
28:
658:Case report
552:Case report
331:broad topic
204:free images
654:Case study
633:Case study
629:Case study
569:Case study
556:Neutrality
242:Case study
721:talk page
516:WP:NOPAGE
266:Shellwood
37:talk page
723:or in a
703:contribs
578:Beccaynr
317:there's
171:View log
112:glossary
61:Ase1este
39:or in a
693:Elmidae
210:WP refs
198:scholar
144:protect
139:history
89:New to
574:WP:TNT
544:Delete
520:highly
511:report
453:Andrew
335:Andrew
286:Andrew
182:Google
148:delete
615:Focus
548:merge
509:case
467:kinds
304:The "
225:JSTOR
186:books
165:views
157:watch
153:links
16:<
699:talk
650:Keep
641:talk
625:Keep
591:Keep
582:talk
564:Keep
473:and
457:talk
444:The
436:talk
339:talk
325:EEng
314:Keep
290:talk
270:talk
250:talk
218:FENS
192:news
161:logs
135:talk
131:edit
50:keep
687:all
656:or
550:to
535:Eng
524:and
507:to
486:Eng
455:🐉(
337:🐉(
288:🐉(
232:TWL
169:– (
701:·
676:)
670:,
660:.
643:)
584:)
459:)
438:)
341:)
292:)
284:.
272:)
264:.
252:)
240:A
212:)
163:|
159:|
155:|
151:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
58:~
52:.
705:)
697:(
673:ν
667:π
664:(
639:(
612:m
609:a
606:e
603:r
600:D
580:(
530:E
481:E
434:(
327::
323:@
308:"
268:(
248:(
236:)
228:·
222:·
214:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
184:(
176:(
173:)
167:)
129:(
114:)
110:(
67:c
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.