Conclusion-making: No single identifiable topic, as should be self-evident from the section headers and the sources cited.  Wikipedia is not a repository of Google search results.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 11:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy , Science ,  and Psychology .  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 11:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - No valid rationale for deletion has been provided (e.g. a link to a specific policy with a specific quote).  This is a notable subject with WP:RS .  It's about the processes, methods, and systems for making conclusions.  Maybe you got a little confused with the name, albeit it seems like for some unknown reason you in particular suggest nearly all articles I create for deletion (which I assume is allowed and I try to keep good faith).  It's not "a repository of Google search results"; it's about (the making of) conclusions which is a substantial and notable subject in various fields such as procedures in academic literature or AI .  Prototyperspective ( talk ) 11:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which single source amongst the many you cite suggests that 'conclusion-making' is a single defined topic encompassing everything from the 'conclusions' section of a scientific paper, to science education, medical diagnosis, AI, "argument map systems", and the genetic basis of intelligence?  And how does 'conclusion-making' differ from 'decision-making' - a set of loosely-related topics which Wikipedia quite properly does not attempt to shoehorn into a single article?  This is not a 'notable subject' it is a synonym for a common phrase - 'decision-making' - commonly applied in all sorts of diverse contexts.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 12:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is not about "genetic basis of intelligence" and I don't know why you suggest it is.  It a large/broad topic, just like articles on Sensemaking , Thinking , Interpretation (philosophy) or Meaning (psychology) are (only few examples).  While some used sources are about the subject do not use the term "conclusion-making" or are only about subaspects, quite a few of the used sources use this particular title/term (and if needed the article could be moved).  How it differs from decision-making is clarified in the lead already which you don't seem to have read.  There could also be three or four separate articles but I thought it would be better and more appropriate to have only one with subsections, especially since those are substantially overlapping and interlinked.  Prototyperspective ( talk ) 12:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I read what purports to be the lede.  Given that it fails to follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and summarise content covered in more depth the article body, but instead tries to define the topic by citing contradictory dictionary definitions and the like for the word 'conclusion', I fail to see how it is relevant to the question I asked: which single source you cite suggests that 'conclusion-making' on such a broad swathe of subject matter is a single topic?  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 12:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, I'll try to improve the lead and will add even further WP:RS .  If you and/or others object to the current title, it can be moved to "Conclusion" with a subsection like "How conclusions are made" or "Conclusion-making".  I don't think splitting it into 3–4 articles would be due, and all of these are relating to not "different things" but one single concept of conclusionmaking, similar to sense-making , applied in different fields.  Prototyperspective ( talk ) 12:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing the article title and/or concocting a lede around an unjustified premise will achieve precisely nothing.  This article is synthesis cobbled together around a word used in different contexts to mean different things.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 12:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And please read WP:TALK#REVISE .  I'd appreciate it if you didn't edit your posts after I've replied to them.  [15] AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 13:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing .  -- Prototyperspective ( talk ) 11:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not an encyclopedic topic, but rather a mishmash of various uses of the word "conclusion".  Rife with WP:SYNTH .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 13:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Conclusions and the making of them is a broad/abstract certainly notable singular concept applied in multiple fields due to which there are subsections.  WP:RS clearly establish this to be a subject of notability and many of them refer to it as "conclusion-making" too.  How is it not an encyclopedic topic?  Sensemaking , Thinking , Interpretation (philosophy) or Meaning (psychology) for instance are.  Good to see you refer to a specific policy.  It says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source which is not done here and I don't see how it would apply.  Prototyperspective ( talk ) 14:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So where is the single source which concludes that the disparate collection of 'things called conclusions' can be treated as a unified topic?  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 15:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources are about the making of conclusions.  I object to splitting the article since all of those refer to the same concept of conclusion just applied in different fields and the split articles would be too short each.  Should I link all sources are about that and/or using that specific wording here?  You could just look into the refs where I also added more quotes now so you can more easily see that they're about the subject of this article.  Examples [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] .  I think I found an appropriate middleground between the notability/prevalence of the subject and what the sources cover in detail/explicitly – the latter could be better/more extensive due to which I added an hatnote.  Prototyperspective ( talk ) 15:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for making your inability to understand Wikipedia policy on synthesis so abundantly clear.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 15:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources use the same term(s), all referring to the same concept, just applied within different fields.  How is it synthesis to put the different fields where this concept is applied or is a subject into one article, rather than separated multiple, when they all refer to the same concept?  Just like in this case, e.g. sensemaking is applied in many different contexts, which certainly could warrant separate articles for each but does not preclude having one for the subject in general.  Prototyperspective ( talk ) 15:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Provide a single source that explicitly states that this is 'the same concept'.  Do it now .  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 15:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC) = [ reply ] Just because other broad-topic articles that sound vaguely related exist doesn't mean that this article should .  It's possible that they're junk and just haven't been nominated for deletion yet because nobody has wanted to bother.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Unless someone can find a single source that discusses the topic in a manner that encompasses all the different examples given (scientific literature, AI, medical diagnosis, etc.), this article is just a mashup of several different unrelated subjects linked by WP:SYNTH , which is not how we're supposed to construct articles.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are highly related and overlapping as well as referring to the same overarching concept of conclusion-making though.  Would you really prefer if there were separate Conclusion-making in science , Conclusion-making in artificial intelligence , and so on despite that these all refer to the same concept of conclusion?  It's not a mashup – each has its own section.  Prototyperspective ( talk ) 15:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your personal unsourced opinion that multiple sections of this article are "referring to the same overarching concept" is of precisely zero relevance to this discussion.  Provide a source which explicitly backs it up.  Now.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 15:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Done ( >a single source ).  (Also consider that they use the same term/wording.)  Prototyperspective ( talk ) 16:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which source is that?  Provide a fucking citation before I report you for your ridiculous stonewalling bullshit AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 16:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think they mean this edit .  (Which, as far as I can tell so far, is just more mashing and includes at least one source that we shouldn't regard as reliable .)  XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We seem to be well into WP:CIR territory at this point.  Either that, or trolling.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 16:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is the sources in the lede, which I thought I wouldn't need to clarify, in addition to all the other sources in the article which use the same terms like "conclusion-making".  Since when are people to assume that the same wording / terms refer to different things instead of one thing due to which there is a word/phrase for it?  I also take note of the unfriendliness to say the least at Provide a fucking citation before I report you for your ridiculous stonewalling bullshit .  Prototyperspective ( talk ) 16:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since when are people to assume that the same wording / terms refer to different things instead of one thing due to which there is a word/phrase for it?  Since 1971 at least.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So, still no actual identified source, just more hand-waving, accompanied by the most ridiculous argument yet.  What a surprise...  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 17:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, this is pure WP:SYNTH , not a notable topic in philosophy.  Conclusion is a disambiguation page for good reason, the word is polysemic .  - car chasm ( talk ) 06:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll accept this decision and there is some merit in the argumentation if the yet-unmentioned WP:TOOSOON is also considered since there could be more refs about all/multiple of the subsections at once than currently in the lede.  This is my last comment here (most likely) and I just want to say, also addressing XOR'easter's point about ambiguity above: the word is not polysemic, it just has different applications.  Conclusion-making in AI is very different from human conclusion-making, but in this sentence "conclusion-making" refers to the same abstract concept, where implementation varies heavily, which is very different from "polysemic".  Never said it was a notable subject in philosophy, it is a very notable subject more broadly and in other fields.  Prototyperspective ( talk ) 08:27, 22 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete