Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meta-epistemology (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Meta-epistemology
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination on behalf of, who did not follow correct procedure for a second nomination. Rationale is as follows:
 * Unreferenced and written as an essay. Previous discussion has a majority of editors for either deletion or merger.  Lacks direct sourcing for the term.


 * Delete or Merge per nomination  Snowded  TALK 22:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For my part, I am neutral. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 03:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:ESSAY. Actually it seems also to be in part not much more than notes for an essay, with a logic that isn't easy to follow. There is a list of references, but without footnotes it is impossible to tell whether the opinions are the author's (WP:OR) or could possibly be traced, but the style suggests it's the author's point of view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Save: Although there is reason to complain about the article's present condition, the absence of in-line citations does not appear to mean that none can be found. The search keys at the top of this page produce, among other things this listing which identifies half a dozen scholarly texts with 'meta-epistemology' in their titles and a few thousand other books where meta-epistemology is raised as part of discussion. So the issue is not that meta-epistemology is a dismissible topic but that some work is needed on this article. Many sub-disciplines of philosophy have their own branch of 'metaphilosophy', examples being Meta-aesthetics, Meta-epistemology, Meta-ethics, Meta-ontology, and so forth. According to:
 * The present article provides a basis for further development that should not be cavalierly erased. There is no argument so far that it is misleading or incorrect in its details. The article was largely formulated by User:Tegiap, and I have placed a notification of this requested deletion on User talk:Tegiap. Brews ohare (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A merge with epistemology was discussed for years on Talk:Epistemology and seems to have been decided to leave things as they were. These participants have not been notified of the present effort to delete this article. Brews ohare (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The first deletion discussion can be found here. Brews ohare (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are two issues here: (1) the inherent notability of the topic, and (2) the current state of the article. Regarding (1), the subject is a notable topic of academic discourse.  For example, it is the subject of an entry in The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, is the subject of several academic papers (Google scholar query) and is discussed in a number of books as previously pointed out.  The topic satisfies WP:GNG.  Regarding (2), I agree the article is in poor shape, but this is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem that can be fixed through dedicated editing.  The existence of a substantial body of academic literature on this topic gives the article WP:POTENTIAL - and the "deletion of articles with potential should be avoided". --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's all yours. Have fun editing it... Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. A need for cleanup does not justify deletion. The sources are there, the information is there, someone needs to put in the work, but it meets criteria to be kept. Ducknish (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Lots of) Ordinary editing will bring this page to satisfactory state. As pointed out above, this topic is a subject of papers and books sufficient to meet GNG. BusterD (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2013 (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.