Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic logic

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. Courcelles 10:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic logic

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

The article appears to be about the pet theory of Stephen Palmquist. He's appropriated a standard philosophical term, synthetic, for his theory, but his theory seems to be studied only by him. This is a contested prod; the reason given for declining is that this term receives a large number of hits in Google Scholar, but none of the hits I looked at before nominating the article were about this theory. Ozob (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's obscure, but there are 3 ghits in Scholar for Palmquist "Synthetic logic". We ultimately should have an article on all forms of "synthetic logic", or a dab page and several articles at disambiguated forms of "synthetic logic" (like Synthetic logic (Palmquist)), but for now I see no reason to delete. It should be tagged for needing expansion, and it should be noted on the talk page that it should probably be merged or moved in the future as the current topic does not appear to be the primary use of "synthetic logic". --Born2cycle (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Of the three hits mentioned above, one is an article by Palmquist himself (not an independent source) and the others, although they cite an article by Palmquist, do not contain the word "logic" except in the bibliography, and don't contain the word "synthetic" at all. So it looks to me as though this topic doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Jowa fan (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, clearly non-notable. Should not be confused with the other meaning of synthetic logic which is obscure-ish but probably notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. Joel B. Lewis (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In keeping with WP guidelines, one must presume the best intentions, and looking at the history of this article I do not see evidence its creation was a vanity project. There are many scholarly articles that characterise various logics as 'synthetic' (including logic used by Kant). In addition, the basic definition given in the article seems to characterise a reasonable number of these logics. I agree with Born2cycle (above) that the article simply needs expansion, not least of all in the references. I am certain a reasonable attempt at this could be made in an hour or two. Indeed if those of us who have commented on this deletion had rather spent the time expanding the article, it would already be an unassailable 'Keep'. 2.97.115.56 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about Kant's synthetic logic but an entirely unrelated logic by Palmquist which can be mechanically transformed into classical logic. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is titled 'Synthetic Logic' not 'Palmquist Logic'. Synthethic Logic has been developed in a variety of ways by notable philosophers (such as Kant & Alain Badiou), and academics (such as Alex Djalali and Christopher Potts of the Stanford Linguistics department). Why not just remove the Palquist material (if one insists), revert the article to a philosophy 'stub' and then rewrite it to take into account the other various (notable) theories. This *is* Wikipedia after all. We don't delete just because something better can be made of what exists. 2.101.19.102 (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you please re-read all of the opinions being expressed here? As it stands, this article does not even remotely meet the standards of WP:Verify, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Notability. If you are able make edits that would bring the article into compliance with those standards, then you should do so (that's one reason why these deletion discussions are scheduled to remain open for a minimum of seven days). — Satori Son 17:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CRGreathouse. —Ruud 10:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage in independent sources to demonstrate notability, per Jowa fan above. Robofish (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I would have suggested 'Merge into Stephen Palmquist' as an alternative, but it looks like that article's going to be deleted as well.) Robofish (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. This logics theory does not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article provides three references, all of which are self-published. (Full disclosure: I was notified of this discussion because of my recent participation in the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Palmquist.) — Satori Son 14:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 14:27, 4 August 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.