Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trivial objections


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Trivial objections

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

DePRODed. Concern was: ''Article has been marked as unsourced, as having original research, and as being written as a personal reflection for four years. No changes have been made.'' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a reference to Madsen Pirie's book for sourcing. My opinion is Neutral on whether the article should be deleted. Tevildo (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep - Well explained and one of the well known fallacies of diversion. I’ve now added multiple references to support the statements and removed tags. - NQ (talk)  00:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - now sourced, as stated above. While similar to some degree, "straw man" is not the same and this article is relevant to Wikipedia for the point being made/explained. Kierzek (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG:, , . Some of these book previews go beyond the first listed page, but are unviewable after the first page. North America1000 00:18, 9 May 2016 (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.