Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pragmatic maxim


 * 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. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 08:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pragmatic maxim

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This reads as a personal essay on Peirce's pragmatic maxim, sourced entirely from one publication. The ton is all wrong ("seven ways of looking at.."), and it lacks any sources independent of the originator of the term. I flagged this for wider attention a while back, but it does not seem to have resulted in any kind of input. A redirect to Peirce or a merger of the small amount of usable text to a new possible article on the logic of Peirce would be fine, but I don't think this should stand as-is. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Try "First Rule of Reason".
 * &hellip;
 * &hellip;
 * Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So does that mean it needs to be retitled, then? Guy (Help!) 17:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * &hellip;
 * Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So does that mean it needs to be retitled, then? Guy (Help!) 17:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Tricky question:
 * It looks like the article is conflating the First Rule of Reason and the Pragmatic Maxim. The first quotation in the article is the Rule.  The third is the Maxim.  Say hello to all the nice people at WikiProject philosophy, who (I hope.) are just joining us. Uncle G (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keep and improve or merge and redirect Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC) the subject is a worthy one for the wikipedia, we just need to decide how it is portrayed.
 * Keep - add to if needed, but the current content is good and should be kept WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it needs work, but it is worthy of a standalone article.  Deletion would be overkill. Cyclone77 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like the article is conflating the First Rule of Reason and the Pragmatic Maxim. The first quotation in the article is the Rule.  The third is the Maxim.  Say hello to all the nice people at WikiProject philosophy, who (I hope.) are just joining us. Uncle G (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keep and improve or merge and redirect Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC) the subject is a worthy one for the wikipedia, we just need to decide how it is portrayed.
 * Keep - add to if needed, but the current content is good and should be kept WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it needs work, but it is worthy of a standalone article.  Deletion would be overkill. Cyclone77 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keep and improve or merge and redirect Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC) the subject is a worthy one for the wikipedia, we just need to decide how it is portrayed.
 * Keep - add to if needed, but the current content is good and should be kept WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it needs work, but it is worthy of a standalone article.  Deletion would be overkill. Cyclone77 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2008 (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.