Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Episteme 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 No consensus and move. The title of the article seemed to throw everyone off. Jossi's post seemed rather persuasive, with many Google book hits for epistemological psychology In 1940, Bachelard wrote of the evolution of scientific systems in the western world, and devised what he called an epistemological profile. There is a lack of consensus as to whether Bachelard originated epistemological psychology and whether the remaining information in the article can be sourced. I'm moving the article to Epistemological psychology per the discussion to give it a better chance of being improved. -- Jreferee    t / c  14:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Episteme psychology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

unsourced article. I've been unable to verify this term. Google returns 17 unique hits, but those seem to be Wikipedia referential. A month ago, when the page was created, I sought sourcing from the creator who by all appearances may be the author mentioned in history, but the creator has not produced anything in spite of apparent willingness to discuss the matter. Professionals from whom I've sought assistance have not been able to provide anything. Unless sourcing can be produced, I think we have to conclude that the topic is not notable. {WP:PROD removed by vandal.) Moonriddengirl 11:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Oh, was that the user following you around and harassing you the other night? I'm sorry, I didn't know...that prod could have gone back up.  Oh well.  --UsaSatsui 15:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable sources can be found. I've looked on Google, GBooks, GScholar, GNews and found nothing. I can find no relevant mentions on Pubmed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Ovid or PsychInfo (although I'm not an expert in the area). -- Kateshort forbob  12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have looked for references and not found any in the professional literature. Furthermore, I cannot make sense of the article content. I am wondering if it is a hoax.  "Inkling" is not a standard psychological term. Is it being used in the standard dictionary sense?  Quote from article: "The inkling is presumed to trigger an affect which encapsulates and saturates all human experience."  What does this mean? -- Mattisse  13:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/rename It seems that the principal author of this subject(Bachelard) was French and so you have two difficulties - the sources are in French rather than English and that they are then garbled by weak translation of subtle ideas. For example, I suppose that the word 'episteme' ought to be 'epistemological' as, according to the OED, 'episteme' is a noun, known to English from the works of Foucault.  Colonel Warden 15:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a good point. "Epistemological psychology" has 61 unique hits on Google and may be more prevalently represented in professional literature. It seems even to have a long-running journal of its own, although, very oddly, I can only find one google hit, referring to volume 78. :) Can anyone else confirm the existence of a Journal of Epistemological Psychology? --Moonriddengirl 15:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is this material for psychology, I am wondering, despite the name. The first article from the first link on the Google list you provided above is the following:http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/husserl.htm dated 1937, and the first article in it is  22. Locke's naturalistic-epistemological psychology. The second article is 23. Berkeley. David Hume's psychology as fictionalistic theory of knowledge: the "bankruptcy" of philosophy and science. The second link on your Google list is http://www.thesharpener.net/?p=147 which is a 2005 blog whose aim is to "explore the land of blogs". The blogger, Nosenonkey, says all entries "must all be sites about which I was previously unaware before starting this online journey".  The third entry on the Google list is a very unprofessional CV of a German professor: http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Rainer.Maderthaner/curriculum-engl.htm. Please provide some source material for the speculations about that this article is a French translation of a recognized field in psychology.  -- Mattisse  15:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction - The first entry on the Google list is apparently on the topic Edmund Husserl (1937)

-- Mattisse 15:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure that most of the Google entries are completely irrelevant--they usually are. :) I see the term referenced in an abstract as it is used in this article, over here. A good many of the 61 google hits I found refer to a single article: More, M., 1991a, Dynamic Optimism: Epistemological Psychology for Extropians, Extropy #8 Vol.3, No.2, Winter 1991/92. (There's some exposition about the article here. Not very encouraging in establishing notability for this usage.) There's a reference to the term on page 335 of Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie, but I don't read German. :) (It's here, in case anybody does.) It's included as part of a hyphenate here, but no indication is made that the term is formalized. If anybody can verify the existence of the journal, that would go a long way to persuading me that the subject is an independent field of psychological study, particularly if the journal does have over 70 volumes. --Moonriddengirl 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, "Erkenntnispsychologie" turns up twice as many hits than "epistemological psychology" in Google Scholar, it looks like the term was tossed around in Continental Europe more than in English speaking areas. Burzmali 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to be original research. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to Epistemological psychology about which there are many sources. See ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2007 (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.