Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental Models

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Contested prod. The article's subject fails WP:NBOOK. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one reason this article is notable is that a google search for mental models gentner stevens turns up a large number of scholarly articles that list the book as a reference. Also because the academic section of WP:NBOOK says that if a book is published by a respected academic press that should go a long way toward establishing notability, and it was, it was published by Erlbaum which has since been bought by Taylor and Francis. Also, in the theory of mental models, it is the next major work on mental models since 1943, when Kenneth Craik wrote The Nature of Explanation, the book credited with originating the theory. This is admittedly a specialized area and I realize this is a somewhat dry reference book, but I think a major strength of Wikipedia is helping to preserve information. For instance, a very good history of mental models on lauradove.info has disappeared from the Internet, and it was one very good source that mentioned this book's place in the history of mental models. I plan to try to find that article or an equivalent and to add more references and content to the article to help bolster my argument. Also, both editors and most of the authors of the individual articles in the book are themselves notable which should also add to the book's notability. Spalding (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perhaps although I am willing to change because my searches only found a few mentions here and there, and questionably better for this article. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Scholar lists 2,289 articles that cite this book, easily meeting the requirement of WP:NBOOK#Academic and technical books that we should consider how widely the book is cited by other academic publications when evaluating notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found some academic reviews for the work and offhand it looks like it's fairly widely cited. I didn't add any of that, but I did add three reviews. I'm actually mildly familiar with this work and I believe that it was mentioned in one of my readings this semester, but I'm not really familiar enough to flesh this out at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reviews added by User:Tokyogirl79 seem to put this past GNG. 86.17.222.157 brings a number of citations which seem to indicate this passes NBOOK. BusterD (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, reflected in article with reviews added by User:Tokyogirl79. WorldCat also shows holding by over 500 libraries [1], good for such a 30+year old book. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2016 (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.