Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Ontological Attitude


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Natural Ontological Attitude

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not see how this article about a single chapter in a book is notable. The article is composed most of his quotes. I would not even redirect it, though I would make a redirect for the book.  DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per GNG. It's a "seminal paper" published in 1984 (with a sequel) that coined the term NOA that has currency in philosophy of science. The papers were later anthologized in a book, but the papers (and term NOA) is what is notable. A Google Books search shows sources that discuss the paper and term. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a lead section. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep per Green Cardamom's source finds. In particular, the books Studies in Scientific Realism and Engaging Science: How to Understand Its Practices Philosophically are both secondary reliable sources that go into some depth about Fine's Natural Ontological Attitude. GC's other stated sources are not in as much depth, but contribute to notability by showing that Fine's NOA stance is more widely considered. Multiple in-depth reliable sources show the topic passes WP:GNG. DGG is right to criticize the article for relying entirely too much on primary material, but fixing this is a matter of ordinary editing and a surmountable problem per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 06:06, 12 November 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.