Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge acquisition (philosophy)


 * 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Knowledge acquisition (philosophy)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The term "knowledge acquisition" usually refers to collecting knowledge for expert or knowledge based systems. There is a stub article for that topic now: Knowledge acquisition(computer science). When I google "knowledge acquisition philosophy" the first 10 articles are either on knowledge acquisition and expert systems or about Epistemology (the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge). Epistemology is of course a valid topic and there is already a very good article on it with a section on knowledge acquisition that has little if anything in common with this article. IMO anything of value in this existing article (although frankly I don't think there is anything) should be merged with the Epistemology article and this article should be deleted.

This current article is completely point of view with no references that are relevant to the article or qualify as valid references except the last reference by Tom Gruber which is a valid reference but has nothing to do with what is in this article but rather is about knowledge acquisition for knowledge-based systems. One other references is to a short article on a Neurology blog about how the brain processes attention. The topic is completely irrelevant to this article and the blog is not a legitimate reference. Another source is to a philosophy dictionary site in a section on topics beginning with "P". Again not a valid reference and I couldn't find any of the definitions that were relevant. The last reference is again from an unknown web site. The author and sponsoring group is unknown, it seems like it may be a student paper. It seems to be about knowledge acquisition for psychology but the author seems confused as they reference knowledge representation schemes used for AI software but which no psychologist believes are direct models for human memory. Again not relevant (nothing about Aristotle in any of these articles) and not a reliable source. The 16 items in the Methods section (at least half the article) for example are completely OR, there is no reference and the selection of items seems clearly to be one editor's opinion. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - This article started out as an IT-related topic and was hijacked by User:Metaphysicalnaturalist. It's mostly (all?) unsourced original research.Glendoremus (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's not even worth redirecting, as the article is misnamed. The initial draft was indeed about Knowledge-based systems (KBS), in other words IT systems using artificial intelligence, the exact domain of Knowledge acquisition (software). The article adds nothing to those other existing articles, and is as stated a confused muddle of WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2017 (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.