Deletion of Neuroepistemology

Comment: A http://www.google.com/search?q=Neuroepistemology&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 Google Books search demonstrates that the topic itself is notable and discussed in .  One solution may be to turn the article into a tub, possibly supplemented by whatever bits from the present article that editorial consensus deems salvageable.  That would provide a fresh basis on which future editors could build the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:S)

Comment: There seems to be a growing consensus that the topic is notable, but there may be little or nothing worth keeping of the current article. In this case, perhaps  applies. That essay recommends creating a stub over outright deletion--perhaps stubifying the article would be a compromise both the keepers and deleters could live with
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (WP:POTENTIAL)

Comment: Colonel Warden's new stub per , with this discussion as consensus against any attempts to revert to the previous version (as has already happened several times
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: A neologism it is not; the term is used in the book http://books.google.com/books?id=r0Bf3lLys6AC&dq=%22neuroepistemology%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s Philosophy of the Brain: The Brain Problem, in the title of a book http://books.google.com/books/about/Neuroepistemology.html?id=5xJPLwEACAAJ Neuroepistemology: What the Neurons Knowledge Tries to Tell Us, and in the title of an article http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-170582003.html Neuro-epistemology: a post-modernist analysis of the neuro-sciences.The topic has been researched by Patricia Churchland, a prominent scholar (past president of the American Philosophical Association) in the philosophy of mind, e.g., the secondary source http://sciconrev.org/2004/03/brain-wise/ An interview with Patricia Smith Churchland and the peer reviewed paper http://www.amacad.org/publications/winter2004/churchland.pdf How do neurons know?. Given the books, the peer-reviewed article and the interview all from a 10 minute search, this topic looks notable to me. It is true that the article has much original synthesis of disparate references, but this is a matter of editing cleanup and AfD is not for article cleanup (see  for details). The article thus should be kept. '''Update:''' Given
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTFORCLEANUP)

Comment: The page has 148 references which utterly refute the idea that the topic is original.  See : "''nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK)