Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurathian bootstrap


 * 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. The issue of merging, redirecting, moving or what have you can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Neurathian bootstrap

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a non-notable metaphor. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 05:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The assertion in the nomination is complete rubbish, and would have been easily disproven before wasting any time on an AFD nomination just by looking at some philosophy books that deal in Neurath and Quine. Also (most commonly) named Neurath's boat and even sometimes Neurath's mariner, this simile can be found in reams of philosophy books and articles. A quick Google books search will turn up tens of them. , to pick just one example, devotes an entire chapter &mdash; 71 pages &mdash; to the subject, the first six of which list and discuss the five different versions of the simile, and relate it to other philosophical concepts such as the Ship of Theseus.  There are plenty of sources, including  and , that discuss the re-use of the simile by Quine and discuss the differences between Quine and Neurath on this matter.  There are even sources that link it to Popper. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Neurath's boat, which is currently a redirect to this and is a far more widely-used name for the topic. The sources provided by Uncle G are only a small proportion of what is available, but are quite sufficient to demonstrate notability. However, this was a perfectly reasonable nomination if one doesn't know the topic - the current article uses a non-standard name for it and (until my recent edit, using one of Uncle G's sources) referenced only one, relatively minor source - but when doing WP:BEFORE, it's always worth checking whether redirects to the article might provide better potential sourcing than the current article title (though I suspect that most people don't think to do this). PWilkinson (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (I would also support move) per pwilkinson
 * Merge and redirect to Ship of Theseus which already discusses a whole bunch of variants of this. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:11, 21 May 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.
 * Keep (I would also support move) per pwilkinson
 * Merge and redirect to Ship of Theseus which already discusses a whole bunch of variants of this. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:11, 21 May 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.