Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive closure (psychology)


 * 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 keep. John254 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cognitive closure (psychology)

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

old. also see this Cognitive closure (philosophy)Spencerk (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, weakly. The only content of the article as it stands is, (t)he term cognitive closure refers to "a desire for definite knowledge on some issue and the eschewal of confusion and ambiguity., followed by a valid looking reference.  This seems to be something entirely different from cognitive closure (philosophy).  Unless it can be shown that this phrase is an academic hapax, the existence of what seems to be a longer journal article devoted entirely to the exposition of the subject suggests that this definition stub could be expanded. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Inadequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep first time I've seen "old" as a reason for deletion without any additional comment. DGG (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I don't know enough about the subject to feel comfortable adding them, Google Scholar turns up a respectable number of relevant-looking articles.   Anturiaethwr  Talk  23:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a dictionary. The term fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. No plausible reason for deletion given in nomination, and the article can clearly be expanded using the many scholarly sources given above. --Itub (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2008 (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.