Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epiphenomenon

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. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphenomenon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOT) JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 01:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I agree we should not create quasi-dictionary entries, this one seems to be more than that. It explains the meaning and usage of this term in philosophy and medicine in a manner typical for encyclopedia. Just as we have paradigm or strategy, we may need this article, too (as long as it is factually correct, verifiable, etc.). Pundit|utter 01:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree. Roger (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would call this a fairly important article within the context of philosophy of mind. Not a Dictionary? That seems like a pretty weak reason to me. Greg Bard (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sometimes a topic justifies more coverage than a dictionary can provide, and that's where an encyclopedia steps in. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's not rush to judgement here. The entry is distinctly dictionary-like, as is what you get if you Google the term. The example applications could help to rescue the article, but they are dangerously close to being WP:OR with 5 of 7 paragraphs without citations. If we can have some decent citations, listed here if not in the article itself, then I'd be persuaded to vote to keep: if not, we could send it to Wiktionary... Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is already on Wiktionary. JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 23:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, like most words are (or should be). Still, the fact that there is a definition of the word strategy on wiktionary does not mean that we should delete the article on it from Wikipedia. The determining factors are a) whether there is a need for an article beyond a simple definition of the word b) whether the article is written in an encyclopedic manner. In my view clearly the discussed article on Wikipedia is written in a style of encyclopedic entry, and I incline to think that there is a need for covering this notion here (even if to distinguish and fully explain different uses in academic fields, which is impossible in wiktionary). Pundit|utter 23:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.