Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of knowledge

Definitions of 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)

this may be a notable topic but severely in need of WP:TNT as it's a massive essay with very little thats identifiable as encyclopedic. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Praxidicae, I do not mean to be rude but I would ask you to not just blindly throw wikipedia guidelines at the article in the hope that one sticks. You criticized the article based on the claims that (1) it needs more citations, (2) the topic lacks notability, and (3) it merely expresses personal feelings. Now you throw the new criticism of WP:TNT against it. I challenged each of your claims and provided good reasons against them at User_talk:Phlsph7#Definitions_of_knowledge_moved_to_draftspace. Instead of explaining or defending your claims, you just moved on to another supposed shortcoming. In order to avoid wasting more time, I would ask that you take the time to familiarize yourself with the article and to consider your criticisms carefully before stating them. This way, you should be able to substantiate, explain, and defend them when they are challenged instead of just hurrying to find a new likely guideline to throw at it. So please be concrete: cite the passages you see as problematic, explain why you think so, and respond to the arguments presented so far otherwise. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not throwing them around in hopes that they stick; this is a massive essay chock full of WP:OR with no meaningful or cohesive point. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make me ask you again: which passages are WP:OR? Please start with the most severe cases. If you claim that some passages are original research then it's your responsibility to point out which passages. If these claims have references then it's also your responsibility to point out why these references are not sufficient. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to point out every single piece of OR here - it's a massive time sink and I don't appreciate threats. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out at least one or are you unable to? If the article is "a massive essay chock full of WP:OR" then this should be very easy. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claims that the article has "very little thats identifiable as encyclopedic" and that it has "no meaningful or cohesive point": The article has a very clear structure. The lead is made up of 4 paragraphs. The first paragraph summarizes the section "General characteristics and disagreements". It explains what definitions of knowledge aim to accomplish and why there is so much disagreement in the academic literature. The second paragraph summarizes the section "Traditional definition", which talks about the traditionally dominant way how knowledge is defined: knowledge is justified true belief. The third paragraph summarizes the sections "Gettier problem and cognitive luck" and "Responses and alternative definitions". It explains the criticisms of the traditional definition and discusses alternatives suggested in the academic literature. The fourth paragraph summarizes the section "Non-propositional knowledge" and talks about how other types of knowledge are defined. I think the structure here is very clear. Similar structures are found in various reliable sources, such as here or here. If you still believe that there is no meaningful or cohesive point then please take the time to respond to this summary by providing a detailed explanation of your reasons.

Regarding the claim of WP:OR: the article cites a total of 53 sources, all of which are reliable. They are a good mix of journal articles, books and encyclopedia entries. Each paragraph has several of these sources as references. The lead is an exception since it just provides a summary without adding any new information. This is in accordance with WP:CITELEAD. Given this fact, the claim that the article is full of original research is not obvious in any way. The burden of proof is on you. Your inability or unwillingness to cite any passages whatsoever with this alleged fault, despite repeated requests to do so, does not throw a good light on your criticism. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support keeping this article and developing it to coordinate with other pages. There is some overlap with the epistemology article but the two pages could work together with more detail here..