Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prescisive abstraction


 * 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 Merge. Pastordavid (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Prescisive abstraction

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a term which was used by Charles Peirce in one publication. I Googled the term, just about every link is either an email posted by User:Jon Awbrey, an article posted by him on a wiki, or some reference to this article. It's mentioned in three citaitons on Google Scholar, but only as a passing reference back to Peirce. I don't see any evidence that this phrase has any actual currency, the article is essentially as Awbrey wrote it and Awbrey keeps vandalising it. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No secondary sources about the term. Maybe a candidate for Wiktionary, but probably not even notable enough there (I don't know what their standards are for neolgisms.) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. An important element in Pierce's philosophy of abstractions, and a needful complement to the article on hypostatic abstraction, another bit of Piercean jargon.  See this article on Pierce and abstraction; it contains a number of suggestions through which this article might be expanded. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a good argument for a redirect, but there's no source other than Peirce for the term, and no evidence of anyone other than Peirce using it, other than in discussions of Peirce. That article doesn't even use the phrase prescissive / prescisive abstraction. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge Of course it would be expected to be used mainly in comments on Pierce, who is certainly a notable philosopher. But I'm not convinced by the article cited that this is an appropriate separate article. Merge  it & hypostatic abstraction & retitle appropriately. DGG (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - No objection to merger. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that may well be the best answer. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge, obviously, to Charles Peirce. Which ever user wrote it originally or continued vandalism are both not grounds for deletion and it is a possible search term. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge These are two paragraphs of an article on the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce, which we badly need and don't have. Please do it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:07, 15 December 2007 (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.