Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument from free will


 * 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 Keep. Nomination withdrawn, no delete vote – PeaceNT 07:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Argument from free will

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is completely unreferenced and is really OR. It should be properly sourced or deleted.NBeale 22:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As a result of this AfD debate the article has now been refed and has (currently) 9 references. This is what I had hoped would happen. I withdraw my nomination for deletion NBeale 16:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The AfD “debate” consisted of you nominating the article for deletion, and everyone else saying it should be kept. In that respect, it seems that nominating the article for deletion was a little extreme, especially since it is obvious that the article is not (and never was) OR. If you really want references added to an article, the correct procedure is to add the Unreferenced tag. 17.201.38.216 21:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article is an unreferenced mess but argument from free will appears to be a well established philisophical viewpoint, used in not only discussions about the impact of omnipotence but in ones about computers/robots/freewill. google hits show some serious academic articles, I get at least 1/2 a dozen relevant google-scholar links, and the concept+phrase used in academic books back to at least 1890. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm sure sources can be found. --N Shar 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and change tag There seems to be some useful content and there seems to be some verifiability, but the article is badly in need of cleanup and reliable sources.  The  tag should be used instead of AfD.  --JJLatWiki 00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Extensive cleanup or rewrite required, but the argument occurs often and the content is not unsalvageable. Saligron 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have read about the argument from free will in a number of places outside Wikipedia, so the problem with the article is not WP:NOR but WP:V. Some possible sources (both pro and con):, , . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment It is all very well to say that "the argument from free will" appears to be a well established philosophical viewpoint or "I'm sure sources can be found" but unless and until sufficient properly notable sources are found and added to the article this article really shouldn't be there. We can't have unreferenced un-sourced articles in Wikipedia on the basis that some editors believe that it would be possible to write an article that did meet the criteria for inclusion, unless someone actually does.  The main reason I listed this as AfD is because an anonymous editor keeps changing it (in a mindbogglingly philosophically naive fashion) to what (s)he considers "the original version" of the argument but neither (s)he nor anyone else (despite the refs tag) has put in any references at all.  Unless proper notable sources are found and inserted into the article we really should delete this. NBeale 06:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A lack of sources is not a reason for deletion (see WP:Deletion policy). Note that WP articles must be verifiable and should be verified. If an article is unsourced, but there is no reason to question its truthfulness, and it is verifiable (as is the case here, where sources are readily available), then the appropriate action is not deletion but adding  to the article (unless the article makes controversial, libelous claims, in which case, those claims should be removed). Black Falcon 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep NBeale, your comment makes no sense. “Unless proper notable sources are found and inserted into the article, we really should delete this”? If the article were deleted, it would be a lot harder to add sources, wouldn’t it? A simple Google search has proven that the article is not OR, so the next step is adding sources, not deletion. As for my edits being “philosophically naive,” they are nothing of the sort. You took a well-established argument based on specific definitions of omniscience and free will, then started qualifying and modifying those definitions, which had the end result of completely changing the argument. The argument from free will should be some form of the argument from various referenced pages, which includes (but is not limited to) the premises “an omniscient being knows the actions of individuals” and “an individual has free will to choose from multiple actions.” If you change either of those premises, you change the argument. 75.17.113.113 09:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with above. I would also note that the argument for deleting articles for lack of sourcing is strongest where there is reason to suspect that the factual claims of an article may be untrue. I think this nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator. Allon Fambrizzi 09:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
 * 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.