Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemology of Wikipedia


 * 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. Withdrawn - mea culpa on the lackluster BEFORE search. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Epistemology of Wikipedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think there's enough reliable sources of substance to carry this as a standalone article, and I'm not sure there's a suitable merge target. The source from Australasian Journal of Educational Technology looks ok, but Social Science Research Network isn't peer-reviewed, and the Jankowski paper is an MA thesis, which are not usually taken as reliable. It's not enough. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. –dlthewave ☎ 15:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , SSRN is a repository. To say SSRN isn't peer reviewed is sort of saying that JSTOR ain't peer-reviewed though SSRN"s policy of allowing user-uploads like Academi.edu et al do dilute the rigor. At any case, the article was published in a peer-reviewed-journal by Wiley.Also, this, this, this and many more. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Winged Blades of Godric. Mccapra (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2019 (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.