Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonexistence


 * 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 of the debate was Redirect to existence. Computerjoe 's talk 17:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonexistence
I'm hesitant to nominate a page that has been around for a long time, but despite its age, it doesn't seem to contain much that is obviously useful. There's no citations, and it looks like it's mainly (perhaps totally) OR and speculation. And while I'm not a philosophy major, it doesn't feel particularly deep to me. Your thoughts please. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is OR, and its title essentially describes its sources - nonexistent. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 12:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect with Existence. There is a fair amount of old philosophy content that dates from the early days of the project; a lot of it isn't all that good, at least by current standards, but remains worth keeping.  Not sure we need separate pages for Existence and Nonexistence, though.  Smerdis of Tlön 15:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to existence and merge what useful/verifiable content there may be. Strange that this is so old but has so few edits or incoming links - I guess that's a hint that it doesn't need to exist. Opabinia regalis 16:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - even a merge and/or redirect seems pretty generous for an article that is almost entirely speculation. The article on existence is well-written and well-cited; if its editors feel this topic deserves mention there, let them write it up from scratch with proper citations. HumbleGod 17:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to existence. We should leave those editors a note so they can determine if anything is worth merging. I don't see a need to delete when we can redirect. Redirecting leaves the old material available for possible merging and rewriting by people who care to look up sources. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above. There doesn't seem much that isn't WP:OR to merge.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to existence. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to existence. TerriersFan 02:57, 9 July 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.