Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mentifact

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. Courcelles 09:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentifact[edit]

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

This is essentially a failed neologism. It was intended, as best I can understand, as a catch-all that covered the generic class to which sociological concepts such as mores, taboos and norms belong as well as religious dogma and memes. There is no evidence that this was ever accepted beyond the paper of one writer. The use of the term in ethnomathematics is unrelated to the use in sociology, as I understand it. So Essentially, it fails WP:V and WP:N both. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Beliefs, Customs, Tales, Music, and Art. This describes it as "A constituent of culture that exists primarily in the minds of the adherents of that culture. As a classificatory concept, the term mentifact overlaps with covert culture, or aspects of culture that are not directly observable ...". We don't have an article on covert culture yet so this seems to be a reasonable start on this notable concept. Warden (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree that the article is in sorry shape, but this is in no way a "failed neologism"; rather it is a Term of art in the fields of semiotics and folklore. For instance, google scholar gives over 400 papers in which this concept is used: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mentifact&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2011 (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.