Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is logic empirical?


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is logic empirical?

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I feel a little hesitant to nominate this article for deletion, since the two articles about logic it discusses are clearly important. However, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. It may be worth having an encyclopedia article about an article about logic, but it cannot be worth having an encyclopedia article about the title of an article about logic. Still less is it worth having an encyclopedia article about a title that actually applies to two different articles about logic; that's not encyclopedic at all. WP:NOTESSAY, too. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a good article, but I think it should be re-worked to focus more on the subject than the individual articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't really addressed the point. The article is an interesting essay, and something of a muddled dictionary entry too, but it's not in the least encyclopedic. Maybe the content should be moved to user space instead of being deleted, but it just won't do as an encyclopedia article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The foremost question to consider here is whether the topic of this article – the papers by Putnam and Dummett – is notable. Even a peremptory search shows that the answer is in the affirmative. In particular the paper by Putnam has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Whether our article is a good article is secondary – and, speaking about secondary, it could be improved by sourcing the various claims to secondary sources; as it is, it indeed reads somewhat as an essay. I don't understand the WP:NOTDICTIONARY argument. Just like our article They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, the Wikipedia article is not about the phrase that is its title; it is about a publication bearing that title. --Lambiam 22:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an invalid argument for keeping the article. The article, as the lead states, is about the title "Is logic empirical". That is not a suitable or encyclopedic subject. You are just wrong in saying that the article "is not about the phrase that is its title" - the article itself explicitly states otherwise. Furthermore, while the two papers by Putnam and Dennett may each be notable independently, that does not mean that they constitute a specific, notable subject between them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They Shoot Horses, Don't They? is a completely different case that has nothing in common with this one. That article is not in violation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY because, although the novel's title is taken from a common phrase, the use of the phrase as the title of the novel gives it a different sense entirely. In this case, however, the article as written is about a title that happens to be used by two different papers about logic. That does violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the lead states that the article is about the title "Is logic empirical?". Even if it were to make that statement, that is then an easily corrected error, since it is clearly the case that the content of the article is not about that title but about the articles bearing that title and the philosophical arguments made therein. --Lambiam 23:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead begins, " Is logic empirical? is the title of two articles that discuss the idea that the algebraic properties of logic may, or should, be empirically determined". That statement, explaining the article's title, identifies what the article is about. Thus the article is effectively about a title shared by two different papers about logic. That the rest of the article's text may attempt to discuss the articles themselves is another matter; that doesn't alter the awkward, misconceived nature of the article itself. I suppose that if each of the two articles is independently notable, then the article could simply be split in two. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, and per its lead our article The Overcoat is about the title "The Overcoat" and should be deleted as a violation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY to make room for an article about Gogol's short story of that name. :) --Lambiam 09:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's another case that has nothing in common with this one. That article can be fixed by simple editing, because it's about a single specific subject. This one can't, because it is an attempt to discuss two different papers together in one article by making the article about their shared title. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- notable content Greg Bard (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that a merge would make sense here, since the content seems ok but the article is all over the place. Then again, we're not supposed to merge uncited content. I think it would be a good idea to discuss these issues on the relevant topic, but I don't think it's a good idea to have one article on two papers like this. A quick look indicates that both the Putnam and Dummett papers may be independently notable, so the best idea may be to split this article and then renominate if necessary. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Dummett's paper was written in reaction to Putnam's, sources that discuss Dummett's paper in depth generally also present Putnam's argument, and the individual notability of Dummett's paper is therefore limited. Rather than treating these papers as two separate topics, I think it is much better to devote a single article to the philosophical debate on the question to what extent logic is empirical, a debate in which these two papers have presented key arguments and stand out as milestones. --Lambiam 21:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that Dummett's paper wouldn't be independently notable simply because sources that discuss it also discuss Putnam's. In any case, there is no reason why an article on the "philosophical debate on the question to what extent logic is empirical" should be written as though it were about the title "is logic empirical?" It's not a sensible or encyclopedic way of doing things. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - according to a colleague who teaches this material, this is a big concept in two big articles written by big names in philosophy. Plenty of sources could be added. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that you say nothing about the WP:NOTDICTIONARY issue. The article is effectively identified as being about the title "is logical empirical?", which is not a concept at all. If there is an underlying concept, it ought to be quite easy to identify what it is and rewrite the article accordingly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an issue about moving or re-naming the article, rather that a deletion issue. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The two papers that are the subject of this article are cited enough to be notable, hence WP:N is satisfied. The article needs work, and possibly splitting or merging, but AfD is not for cleanup. -- 202.124.73.139 (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying that the article is about Putnam and Dummett's papers on logic doesn't make that so. De facto, articles are about what the lead identifies them as being about, in this case the title 'Is logic empirical?', an entirely unencyclopedic subject. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2012 (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.