Deletion of Interpretive science

Comment: or change to redirect to qualitative research. The term  in sociology is standard and widespread and is covered in qualitative research. Its use in the physical or biological sciences is  and  and unsupported by any 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:RS)

Comment: per  etc, etc, if not outright 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:CB)

Comment: looks to me to be a classic case of - the "definitions" section with all those quotes selectively mined and lined up to produce the argument is a telltale sign. Many of the sources seem unrelated to the subject and serve only to introduce what looks to be a Creationist POV. Combine that with the total failure of the article to explain Wikipedia:Complete Bollocks#The art thereof|just what "interpretive science" actually ''is'' and how it ''works'', and it becomes clear that this is not a real article at all and probably can never be one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per nom,  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: There are plenty of sources which cover this topic.  Note that when reviewing the sources, one should also allow for the alternative title of ''interpretive research''.  The topic is therefore notable.  The claim of synthesis seems very weak as there is little evidence of the supposed synthetic proposition.  This and other issues are best address by ordinary editing not deleteion per our |editing policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: Not enough independent sources to show this is anything more than a  or misused phrase. |Google hits are not a valid measure of a subject's notability. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:GOOGLEHITS)

Comment: It strikes me that this topic could be greatly expanded on. There are issues, but that is no reason to delete it out of hand.  I am unaware of what universe these editors are getting the idea that this is somehow a '''Creationist Uber Plot to Take Over the World'''.  Some of the sources may violate SYNTH, but none are from fringe sources.  I would suggest that they peruse 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Obvious content fork, obvious synth issues, obvious non-notable |neologism which is not being widely used by anyone.  Some editors above are claiming lots of |google hits on "interpretive science" or "interpretive research", but these google hits do not prove that the science community uses this term with any particular meaning in mind.  It is merely a noun and an adjective put together to describe something else, not a widely recognized scientific methodology.  Redirect to one of the abovementioned forks may be appropriate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:GHITS)