Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metametaphysics


 * 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   no consensus. J04n(talk page) 16:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Metametaphysics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is based on one book with the same title. No evidence provided that this is a real sub-discipline within Philosophy. No evidence of notability after several years of tagging Snowded  TALK 11:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * DELETE or REDIRECT per nomination Snowded  TALK 11:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The article Metametaphysics might be better placed as a subsection under another title, maybe Metaontology, because so far as I can determine, that is the subject where more activity can be found. The cited source is titled  Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology, and it looks like most of the essays are about the foundations of ontology. Brews ohare (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The title metametaphysics appears to be a misnomer: shouldn't metametaphysics be a critique of metaphysics, not ontology as a whole? Maybe we need a redirect to Meta-ontology? Brews ohare (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No third party references to support either this article or metaontology. All we have is two stubs articles referencing papers with the name.  That is not sufficient. Snowded  TALK 16:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to put in a redirect to meta-ontology and thrash this out there. Brews ohare (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * MERGE/REDIRECT to meta-ontology per above suggestion. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There's an ontological problem here of the kind discussed in Manley's essay: is the reference one book or a collection of articles by different authors on the topic of metametaphysics? There is a chapter in a book by Sider on the topic. There is also a course taught on metametaphysics at U. Washington, but I don't know if this counts toward notability. If one reads Manley's essay, looking at meta-ontology is only one way of approaching metametaphysics--epistemology and semantics play a role too. Redirecting to meta-ontology may not be the best strategy. But at any rate, a book and a chapter in another book  on the topic show multiple reliable sources and the notability of the topic according to WP:GNG. Except for an overlong quote and lack of multiple refs, the article, as a stub, has no serious problems. Notability and no serious problems suggest that this article be kept.--Mark viking (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Spinning Spark  20:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)




 * Merge for now. A few people talking about something doesn't make it a topic about which Wikipedia can say something useful. Shii (tock) 04:12, 2 April 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.