Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alief (belief)


 * 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   no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Alief (belief)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article appears to be about a neologism that has been used in a few psychology and/or philosophy papers. Other than the paper by the person who coined the word (in 2008), the citations do not appear to be about the word even if they mention it. As such, it does not appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NEO. Jminthorne (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails WP:NEO. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  12:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there -- I don't think the alief (belief) entry should be deleted. If you look at the Dennett article, you'll see that a full subsection (section 8) is devoted to discussion of alief http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/McKay-Dennett.pdf. In the Bloom book (which will be published next week), nearly 15 pages are devoted to a discussion of alief. Among those are the pages that the Chronicle of Higher Education published online this week http://chronicle.com/article/The-Pleasures-of-Imagination/65678/

"The Chronicle of Higher Education has long been the giant in the field. Founded in 1966 by Corbin Gwaltney, a former editor at Johns Hopkins University who still owns the publication, it quickly established itself as a must-read for college administrators and faculty. The Chronicle now has a print circulation of just over 85,000 and its Web site gets more than 10 million page views per month." (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/14/business/media/14education.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonStevin (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there -- I'm happy to discuss. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.203.123 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. As an unfamiliar neologism that's used in reliable sources, this is a plausible search term on Wikipedia. I don't think it should be a redlink.  But I agree with Jminthorne that this shouldn't be an article; as written, it's a dictionary definition.  On balance I'm minded to transwiki to Wiktionary, and replace this page with a soft redirect to Wiktionary's definition of the term.— S Marshall  T/C 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - reliable philosophers use the termGreg Bard 00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - for the second day in a row, the Bloom article is the most read item on the Chronicle Web site (which gets 10Million+ page views per month) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.192.84 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Everyone -- I think "alief" should be kept. While it s a recent coinage, it's been getting considerable attention within the psychology and philosophy of mind community. The most recent example, aside from the Bloom article, is that there is a session in the most recent Society of Philosophy and Psychology conference (SPP 2010) called "Intentionality, Biases, & Aliefs" ((http://www.socphilpsych.org/2010-SPP-Program.pdf). SPP is "the premier scientific and educational organization for philosophically interested psychologists and psychologically interested philosophers in North America" (http://www.socphilpsych.org/). The term has a similar status to philosophical expressions such as qualia, Swampman, and Direct Realism, all which are part of wikipedia. While it's admittedly a newer term it's clear from the SPP session that it's the sort of notion that contemporary scholars in the area are now well aware of. SimonSteven
 * keep Term is used both in philosophy and cognitive science. Is discussed in peer reviewed literature. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Completely new to me, but there seem to be sufficient sources for notability    DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 9 June 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.