Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descriptive knowledge

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive knowledge

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article is written as an essay with zero citations and despite being tagged none have been added in over a year. The material is covered in multiple other articles. ---Snowded ^TALK 05:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Which other articles? Would any of them make for a good redirect, as an alternative to deletion? --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 06:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a fairly standard concept and that's why the page history goes back to 2001, when the demands for citations were not so strident. It is easy to find coverage of the topic; for example see Knowledge and Its Attributes. It's just a routine case of improvement being required and, per our editing policy, this is done by ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it lacks secondary sources at the moment, I am sure with some effort, some can be found. This looks like some standard AI terminology. A Google Scholar search of "descriptive knowledge AI" shows plenty of uses of this term. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried an EBSCO search for "descriptive knowledge", and it produced 163 results. Because of the way EBSCO searches work, not all of those hits contain the specific phrase "descriptive knowledge", but many do. You can look up one of the results outside EBSCO here. It seems "descriptive knowledge" is considered a real subject with academic recognition. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its all very well to say keep, but there are zero citations after more than a year of being flagged - that means it more or less all gets deleted anyway. It also digresses into a general discussion on epistimology so even if referenced it would be off topic. If you want to keep it then some "ordinary editing" is called for :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks etc. Any other problems are WP:SOFIXIT. James500 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Admittedly this article and the related ones (Knowledge, Fact,etc.) are pretty bad, but Wikipedia ought to have an article on the species of knowledge that it, and every non-fiction book and article strives to, or at least purports to communicate, namely propositional knowledge. Also, I think it ought to be renamed "Propositional knowledge" since I think it is better-known by that term in philosophy. "Propositional knowledge" currently redirects wierdly to "Procedural knowledge". The "Knowledge" article mentions "description" as a species of knowledge but instead of linking it to this "Descriptive knowledge" article, links wierdly to "Description", an article about description in literature with a brief mention of only one of many philosophical treatments of propositional knowledge, Russell's "Theory of descriptions". In short, Wikipedia's knowledge articles may be messy, but they are important and should be improved, not deleted. Perhaps we should alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Epistemology? —Blanchette (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The only valuable claims about descriptive knowledge on Wikipedia are to be found here: Procedural knowledge#Overview. I would suggest we redirect the page to that section, until someone gets to write a proper article from scratch. As it stands, the page conveys no valuable information and it does not reflect what the literature says on the subject. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2018 (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.