Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem of change


 * 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 to Identity and change. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem of change

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to be a wp:neo issue and unverifiable due to the confusion of the article itself. Article has remained unsourced and unedited (excepting bots) since 2006. Still prefer AFD over PROD since it isn't obvious. P HARMBOY ( TALK ) 19:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete. It's a philosophy essay, and rather a bad one from someone whose first language isn't English. Operating (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Identity and change, the same thing under another title. The problem itself is real and notable.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * then why no sources? Can't merge something with no sources. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 22:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stanford Enc. of Phil.. By the way nobody says that it must be you who merges the articles. Of course both articles have many issues and are undersourced, but this should be solved by another means than this AfD.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that I merge, I was just saying you can't add unsourced info into another article, as that fails wp:v, regardless of who does it. The source you give is interesting, but I'm sure you know its pretty weak to establish the entire article.  I'm not an expert here, I only found the article when trying to source a bunch of articles from 2006, and couldn't source this one (the rest I sourced and removed tags for).  The *reason* it went to AFD is simple:  No one has touched this article in over two years.  No attempt to cite, no attempt to improve.  I could have just PRODed it and it would have disappeared in 5 days.  Instead, I brought it here so others can see it, fix it, delete it, or figure out what to do, since I am smart enough to figure out that I am not smart enough to figure it out.   One thing is sure:  2 years with no references is unacceptable, so something needs to be done.   P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 22:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, now you have at least one source to a part of the article - I am not an expert in the Eastern philosophy, but at least the Western part of the problem (endurantism and perdurantism) is verified.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. SEP doesn't have an article on this, so it seems a WP:NEO used by few philosophers. Also, no references are provided in the article. VG &#x260E; 06:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * comment. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy has an entry on change. part of which reads quite a lot like the article in question (to my amateur eyes). Mission Fleg (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 06:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge This is a core philosophical issue and has been at least since Parmenides. What terminology should be used and at what title the article should be are trifling issues. Absolutely no call for deletion here. And for the record, there is a deluge of verifiable information. the skomorokh  13:10, 3 October 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.