Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantifier shift


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Quantifier shift

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As presented here this article is pure original research. That needs to change or it needs to go. There is no logical fallacy in that! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Psst! You'll be wanting to read what a Google Books search turns up, and revising your opinion on original research, well before WikiProject Mathematics gets wind of this AFD discussion.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All articles require references. All. As it stands it looks like OR. It has cute mathematical stuff in it, but what it looks like is what it looks like. I'm not a mathematician. Folk who understand this stuff should reference it, or it should go. Why are we whispering? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I was giving you a chance to save time and face and avoid being told the same thing by a lot of people. It takes less than 30 seconds to come up with sourcing for this with a Google Books search, and following deletion policy you should have done that search for sources yourself before thinking of AFD.  The original step-by-step instructions that used to be in our deletion and verifiability policies are preserved at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage.  They're still in deletion policy, except that they've been obscured by people trying to remove instructions on how to actually put policy into practice and simply state the goal without any guide to getting there, which hasn't really been a positive step in hindsight.  (People handled this better years ago, when the policy directly told them what to do.)  In this instance, looking for sources yourself would have turned up a boatload, including the OUP Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy in addition to the Cambridge one already mentioned.  If one doesn't understand a subject, by the way, then one's evaluation of whether something is original research is fairly worthless.  One has to at least looked for sources, and read them and compared what they say to what the article says, to determine whether something is a novel hypothesis not propounded outwith Wikipedia.  Things don't simply become original research because of what an article looks like.  One has to read, understand, and check.  Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The Quantifier shift fallacy (also called an illicit quantifier shift), is a well-known concept in logic and philosophy. A simple Google search turns up many pages that discuss the concept:, ,  . These links lead to the references like,
 * Robert Audi (General Editor), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (Second Edition), 1999, pp. 272-3.
 * A. R. Lacey, Dictionary of Philosophy (Third Revised Edition) (Barnes & Noble, 1996).
 * Introduction to Logic, Harry J. Gensler, p. 220
 * not to mention the books that Uncle G mentioned. The topic is very notable. The article does need references, but AfD is not for cleanup WP:NOTFORCLEANUP and the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are sure of your ground, instead of quoting essays, put the references in. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember that this is a collaborative project. You have an edit tool too.  You can easily copy and paste a citation from this page to that one.  Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep; in addition to the sources mentioned above, it is mentioned with its own entry "quantifier-shift fallacy" in Dictionary of Philosophy: Revised Second Edition, by Antony G. Flew, and with its own entry in Historical Dictionary of Logic by Harry J. Gensler. The fact that the fallacy is mentioned in numerous textbooks and has its own entry in "dictionaries" like these is clear evidence of notability. The nominator should take heed of WP:BEFORE #B2. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator's argument that this is OR appears to rely on the lack of references in the article (and a misunderstanding of what it means to be OR), but both are easily remedied. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep i've now added the references mentioned here, but not any inlines.--Salix (talk): 10:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for recognising that the encyclopaedia comes first. Since references, albeit taken on trust, are added, I withdraw the nomination. It no longer appears to be OR. It amazes me always that others will bleat about references existing but fail to add them. You took the references given and built the encyclopaedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:37, 23 December 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.