Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Implicit cognition

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. Tiddly-Tom 07:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit cognition

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about a concept, not a word, so it is not a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite the fact that the article's reference is an author from (EEK!) Berkeley (J/K!), it does fall (barely) within WP guidelines for inclusion. Another article that needs expansion, not deletion.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper

Delete The article in its present state is original research, based on only one reference, which is an apparently unpublished essay. Even if the writer is from an illustrious college, her interesting paper about cognitive psychology and the history of thought about consciousness is not on its face a reliable source. Evidence is needed that the concept is supported by reliable sources. The term and its definition here do not appear to add materially to related older notions in cognitive psychology. A different article with this title could be written based on some of the published sources available in psychology literature, so there should be no objection to later creation of such an article. Edison (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept of implicit cognition is itself notable, and it should have an article on Wikipedia. However, right now the article is poor quality. It is a simple stub with a simple definition. With more information, this could be a good article. I think we should keep the stub for someone to expand it. Dgf32 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's pretty obvious from Google scholar and Google book searches that this is a notable concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it's currently a one sentence article stub, its stats include 14,400 ghits and 44 articles/books at WorldCat. The article needs expansion, not deletion; I left a message at WikiProject Psychology in this regard. Coffee4me (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Scholar and Google Book searches above have loads of hits, including a book titled "Implicit Cognition". There seems little doubt that it is a notable concept with plenty of available references. Therefore, since the article as it exists is not harmful in any way, it's a surmountable problem. All this article needs is someone interested in it to come along and do the research with those easily-findable sources. Come on, it's a stub that needs to be expanded. AfD is not cleanup. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now added a direct reference for the definition, and provided two book references for anyone interested in additional editing. As the article stands now, there are sufficient sources mentioned to dispel any notability doubts. We just need a psychology clean-up crew now. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. That's clinched it. A reference to an article of exactly the same name in an academic encyclopedia plus two books with it in the title, all from highly reputable publishers? Stick an {{expand further}} above them and let's close this. Qwfp (talk) 19:58, 29 February 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.