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 delete. ansh 666 21:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mind shaping

[edit]

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

This is an overly vague term used by two scholarly authors of no significant notability. Tacked onto that is an entirely separate, equally vague, and similarly non-notable use of the term in marketing. Daask (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh. Delete with extreme prejudice. Very few hits in Google Scholar for this term (many of those caused by the coincidental concatenation of the words "mind" and "shaping" ignoring punctuation inbetween the two). Used exclusively in an academic context by a single author (Tadeusz Zawidzki). The definition of the term by Mameli is nonsensical, conflating learning, emotional response, and planning - subjects for which we have already many wonderful taxonomies. This term, and the article "explaining" it adds nothing - just noise. Delete the **** out of this. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 11:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet notability guidelines and appears to be some sort of WP:ADVOCACY for this concept. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2018 (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.