Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodological naturalism

Methodological naturalism
At least one editor wants to replace this article with a redirect to Naturalism (philosophy). I, and at least one other editor, oppose this change. Methodological naturalism is a recognizably distinct concept from the rather broad cateogory of ideas encompassed by philosophical naturalism with imporant consequences. --Rikurzhen 02:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment -- I strongly believe that this VfD is inappropriate since nobody wants to delete the article. A merge is not a deletion and that is clear in Wikipedia policy. Joshuaschroeder 13:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose I don't like the current wording of the article, but the concept is legit and needs an explanation. The topic has been recognized as a valid encyclopedia article here since 2001. And, most importantly, MN isn't the same as philosophical naturalism. So a simple redirect would be misinformation. David Bergan 06:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) oppose MN is a different concept from PN/ON   . Also, MN is a lot simpler than PN/ON. The MN article only introduces one outside term ("ontology"), which it describes sufficiently enough for readers to not need to go to an outside article. the PN/ON article introduces several new terms, and doesn't describe many of them. FuelWagon 03:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support/Merge David Bergan 06:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support/Merge No reason why MN cannot be merged into the Naturalism (philosophy) article; it's clearly a subset. FeloniousMonk 07:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why the heck are we numbering votes all of a sudden? Change bad. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why the heck are we talking about a proposed merge on AfD? I agree with Joshuaschroeder above; this makes no sense. -- BD2412 talk 13:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: Perhaps folks would consider a Requests for Comments on the article(s) instead? An RfC might get consensus, although it won't, of course, get as much attention as an early VfD.  The comments you'd get from an RfC might be to the purpose anyway. Geogre 16:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: To the extent that this VfD has put a stop to the revert war and opened a new thread on the talk page it has been a success. --Rikurzhen 17:21, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is an inappropriate use of VfD. Pseudoprotection or RfC are the accepted ways for editors to stop edit wars. Since there is no one actually asking for deletion, I submit that the VfD should be closed. I will be placing a comment on the administrator's noticeboard, but I'm removing the VfD from both the AfD list and the notice on the article's page. This page will remain active subject to administrator approval. Joshuaschroeder 17:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)