Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acting under a description


 * 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The result was   Nomination Withdrawn Improve per N..... Mike Cline (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Acting under a description

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Author removed prod. Basically just an essay on "acting under a description". Totally unencyclopedic Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw as it appears it could be improved and that AfD may not be a solution. Thanks and sorry if there are any problems. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an emerging idea in philosophy and references have been provided to two world renowned philosophers who developed the idea. I request that this article be sent to philosophy specialists for review and judgement. I have also linked the entry to two other  relevant entries that should help to provide context and scholarly credibiltity. I am a Ph.D student in philosophy and psychology and consider myself suitably qualified to write this entry

Amerywu (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not because I don't believe Amerywu but because I think it veers too close to WP:SYNTH, and will for the foreseeable future. Detailed metaphysics probably need to be discussed in their author's articles until they break out into a separate field themselves (e.g., post-structuralism), or the concept is discussed uniquely (e.g., Dasein). I don't see that happening here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep (see comment below) It does read like an essay to me, and I'd say it does breach WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in its current form, as it includes a lot of personal judgment and opinion, rather than referenced statements made by notable people. Both of the references are links to other Wikipedia articles, neither of which mention the term "Acting under a description" (other than as a link back to this article) - it's perhaps a bit strange that the G. E. M. Anscombe article doesn't mention it. There are Google hits on the term, and I think it is a notable concept and a proper article could probably be written about it, but this one seems to be completely the wrong approach and I think "Delete and start again" would be the only practical way forward, as what we need is an encyclopedic article that describes only what other notable people have said about it, and no actual synthesis - if others haven't written such material, Wikipedia is not the place to start -- Boing!   said Zebedee  (MA Philosophy) 14:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In the light of 96.49.160.240's comment below, I think some time should be allowed for improving the article. The idea is from a notable philosopher, and I think it would be a good result if it could be shown to be sufficiently notable and a well-referenced article written. I'd be happy to offer suggestions, critique, etc, as it develops - just leave me a note on my Talk page. Oh, and I don't think a time limit is needed - I'd suggest just tagging the article as under development. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  16:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect the thoughts of the reviewer and request one week to redevelop the article.

1) "Acting Under a Description" was G.E.M. Amscombe's most influential idea. One reason for adding this article was because it was missing from the Anscombe article. 2) "Acting Under a Description" has been developed over the last half century by a number of philosophers and is a key strand in the philosophy of intention (see your own article or any other article on intention). Philosophy of Intention is a separate field. 3) The explication of Hacking's work includes one example (the playground) that is not from Hacking. Providing illustrative examples is not uncommon in wikipedia. Nonetheless, I can use an example from Hacking if preferred. Other than that, there is no synthesis. 4) The article probably needs expanding to explicate the roots in Foucault as well as Anscombe.

I will work on it and appreciate any comments that make it more appropriate to the Wikipedia format. I do not write many articles for Wikipedia, but this is an article that should be available. 96.49.160.240 (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The general tone of the article needs to be made more encyclopedia-like and more sources provided. However this does seem to be a notabe and worthy subject for an article. Borock (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will work on the article and seek help from others as well. Amerywu (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs work, but appears very fixable as per User:Borock and User:Boing! said Zebedee.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 22:52, 26 March 2010 (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.