Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logic system


 * 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 formal system. Salvageable material can be retrieved from the edit history and added to the formal system article. ~ trialsanderrors 07:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Logic system


Possible neologism, as the only reference claimed using that term (with or without a hyphen) is "Herrmann, Robert A.", who is probably also User:Raherrmann. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment It might be that this article basically duplicates material in the article Proof theory, in which case it should be merged and redirected. Note though that it does look like the article has cited published references, so assuming those references are from accepted mathematical publishers it wouldn't be considered "original research". It simply might be duplicated research under a slightly different terminology.  (I can't vote delete or keep here, though, since I haven't read the articles in great detail.) Dugwiki 20:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Failing that, redirect to formal system. What is described here does not appear to differ in any notable way from the latter concept. Being published in respectable journals does not in and of itself make a term encyclopaedically notable. Henning Makholm 22:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * redirect to formal system. I did a quick google and came up with List of Logic systems which enumerate a large number of different modal logic systems, this seems more like the content I would expect here. --Salix alba (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I still think the term is a neologism, even though it occurs in published papers.  However, formal system seems a better target than proof theory, so I'll withdraw that merge tag unless there's some favorable comment. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Merging into formal system is fine with me.  I'll point out that in other cases (notably uniform polytope) the standards for inclusion have been very low. CMummert 16:55, 17 November 2006 (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.