Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dictum de omni
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Redirect to dictum de omni et nullo. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (note: I also created a redirect for Dictum de nullo.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dictum de omni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Delete or Merge with an appropriate article. An unreferenced and unconventional research/observation. It seems like an original research of the author or at least partially. Notability is questionable. So, as per WP:NOTE, WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:OR nominating this article for deletion. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge, tending towards keep. Plenty of reliable sources exist if you want to look for them (Google Books, Google Scholar maybe?). It doesn't look like original research to me in particular either, so I'm going to have to say that I don't understand the rationale for deletion used by Niaz. Perfectly reasonable topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have done philosophy academically, so I do understand how stuff like this works. For comparison with an article I created before I became an experienced Wikipedia editor, dispositional and occurrent belief, yes it may be obscure outside that particular field but there are plenty of academic citations that could be used to make it pass WP:V and WP:N, same as this article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am really sorry if I hurt you by saying unreferenced or unverifiable content. Actually, I am not from this background and don't have enough specialist knowledge to understand them. As WP says, Wikipedia is not truth, is verifiability; as a user's point of view I have to say it doesn't verify its content. It would be really nice if you kindly add some proper citations, may be off-line, as there is no hard and fast rule that all the citations has to be on the world wide web. In addition, I think it should be written properly otherwise some other Wikipedian may tag it for AfD. And last but not the least, I am not against this article or its content. If it really deserves to be here, it will. At the end of the day we are working for the betterment of Wikipedia. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 19:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Since when is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy not a reliable source? This isn't some web page a student slapped up. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The content for the entry Dictum de omni has been moved over to that of Dictum de omni et nullo. --Burket | Talk 13:05, 31 January 2008 (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.