Deletion of Reverse scientific method

Comment: it's got some use as a turn of phrase (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Reverse+scientific+method%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= 30K GHits, though only 72 unique), but http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Reverse%20scientific%20method%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&tab=ns academic treatment is currently lacking. It's presently only an |OR extention of Thomas W. Eager's pithy quote ("These people use the "reverse scientific method"... they determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/Eagar185supplement3.pdf) a concept not |notable enough for Wikipedia.&mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:N)

Comment: Personally, I love the quote, but I agree with Kenosis and Scientizzle's appraisals. Even ignoring the  issues, the subject is just plain undeserving of a page on Wikipedia at present and that's unlikely to change. —&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)