Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental fact


 * 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.  So Why  08:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Mental fact

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Essentially a coatrack for Searle; redirect to him, possibly? Anmccaff (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The terms seems some use, but I couldn't find any definition, and it seems it may be used in philosophy beyond Searle. But without at least a referenced definition this is WP:OR. Given notability is unclear, I lean towards weak delete due to OR issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep I don't support a redirect to John Searle. The term appears to have some use by others, but the article needs improvement and I'm not sure what the generally-accepted definition is. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep G. E. Moore spent several pages defining and discussing mental facts in A Defense of Common Sense, pp. 10-13 ff., and mentioned them in several other pieces . More recently, several authors have briefly discussed the term in treatments of Moore's work, including Tully 1976, Hellie 2007, and Preti 2008. This would be enough for a short standalone article independent of Searle, although it would be nice to have somebody comparing their conceptions. FourViolas (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Short standalone article" runs afoul of WP:NOTDIC. Even with the article creaor's coatracking for Searle removed, it still doesn't belong except as part of a larger article.  Also, as mentioned above, it's very easy to get cites for the usage before Moore was born. Anmccaff (talk) 15:02, 5 July 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.