Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evident

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus --malathion ^talk 21:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evident

This page violates policy: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" 63.231.15.66 22:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• keep, since the concept from logic warrants more than a mere dicdef. Brighterorange 22:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It is NOT a concept from logic. Even a stem article should not be written in the style of a dictionary.

• What do you mean? Per Martin-Löf for instance uses the term to classify judgments for which we have proofs in his seminal paper On the Meanings of the Logical Constants and the Justifications of the Logical Laws. I don't even think he was the first. It is certainly a concept from logic. Brighterorange 01:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I think the unsigned entry is right. Martin-Löf may have given "evident" a stipulated meaning in his paper, but that doesn't make it a concept from logic. "Evident" is an epistemological or perceptual term or perhaps even a psychological term. But it does not have some specific meaning in logic, accepted by the community of logicians. Compare with such terms as "quantifier", "truth table", "logical constant", "premise", "inference", "proof", "validity", "soundness", "consistency", and "completeness". These are genuinely "concepts from logic". (By the way, it is premature -to put it mildly- to call an article that is only 9 years old from the first issue of a minor journal "seminal". Maybe in another 20 years we can look back and decide that it was seminal, but there's no justification for such a judgement now.) --Nate Ladd 05:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Having now read the Martin-Löf article, I'm more convinced than ever. The article is about the epistemology of laws of logic as distinct from being about logic itself. Moreover, he uses "evident" as an epistemological concept. In fact he equates it with the granddaddy of all epistemological concepts: "known". --Nate Ladd 06:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: None of my logic texts mention it as a significant topic; I can't imagine it ever becoming a complete article. No relevant article links to it. Banno 03:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Evidence. Gazpacho 02:19, 2 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.