Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deconstructive pragmatism


 * 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 Neuroepistemology.  MBisanz  talk 00:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Deconstructive pragmatism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Rambling essay, full of WP:OR and WP:POV. Even if the subject is perhaps notable, this article is irredeemable. PROD was replaced by a merger notice to Neuroepistemology, but that article suffers from the same problems and currently is also at AfD. Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as a stale post-modernist hoax. Sokal did it first (and better). Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Merge – Unsurprisingly, as I was the one who originally proposed it, I am in favor of merging this article with the very similar and related Neuroepistemology. There is considerable overlap between the two articles. Furthermore, in response to Xxanthippe, being a postmodernist theory wouldn't disinclude an article from wikipedia. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid grounds for deletion. This article might, however suffer from WP:UNDUE. Like you said, it might be a hoax, but without any knowledge of neuroscience, I cannot, myself, vote for deletion on those grounds. Bensci54 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Creator joined Wikipedia a few days ago and has been adding junk articles since. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC).
 * That fact that the editor is new doesn't prove that his article is a hoax, or anything else for that matter. Bensci54 (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed not. People can come to their own conclusions. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Delete. Borderline G1 speedy. "One of the central points of this field, is building a gap." I think that says, it all. Actually, "deconstructive pragmatism" does get some hits on Google scholar, but they're for a paper by Biesta in Educational Philosophy and Theory 2008 that seems to have nothing to do with the present article. Even if this were a real discipline (which I am not convinced of), Wikipedia articles are supposed to explain their subjects, rather than being examples of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Now that there is a short stub at Neuroepistemology, the phrase "deconstructive pragmatism" can be added there, but there is no justification for a separate page on the subject. The pro- and con- arguments have already been given at Articles for deletion/Neuroepistemology, and perhaps the AfDs should be combined. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that there is the short stub as you say, is there any continued justification for the merge? The subject of that stub does not look to be closely related to what can be sourced about the title of this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming we can keep the stub stable against reverts, I'd say the limit of a possible merge would be – at most – a brief definition of "deconstructive pragmatism" in the context of the newly revised page, and a redirect. It's not like I'm advocating moving a significant amount of this text to there. (Heaven forbid!) If, as you say, what's on this page does not really relate to the new stub, then a simple delete is fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.