Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Representational theories of consciousness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 per WP:NOR. Nobody seems to rule out that an article could be written about the topic, but this is not it. "Merge all except the OR" isn't possible either as long as nobody has identified what of this is not OR (it appears that all of it is). Sandstein 22:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Representational theories of consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Appears to be WP:OR, or synthesis. ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as poorly sourced, primarily original synthesis; loss of consciousness might result from reading this dull article. Mandsford (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Reads like an essay. Completely WP:OR. Plasticup T/C 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article surely needs some cleanup, but "representational theory of consciousness" yields 53 Google Scholar hits, and "representational theories ..." 96. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on the subject. This is a significant and somewhat meaningful topic in philosophy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Representation (psychology) (with redirect) and Representative realism after stripping the WP:OR - Eldereft (cont.) 08:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The vast majority of this appears to be original research. Whether or not this is a good thing to have an article on, this isn't a proper article. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the SPA creator has the same name as the article. Either the user's name must be blocked as promotional, or the article must be deleted. Admins, make your choice. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2008 (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.
