Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presentism (literary and historical analysis)

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 Keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 16:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Presentism (literary and historical analysis)

Redundant page (see "Historian's fallacy"), nothing links here (the "presentism" disambig now links to "Historian's fallacy"), Niku 22:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. There was no need to AfD this. — Phil Welch 00:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, do not redirect, page not redundant. Presentism and the Historian's fallacy] are very distinct things (despite plenty of apparently wikipedia-propagated information to the contrary.) Presentism: "Thomas Jefferson was evil because he kept slaves." Historian's fallacy: "JFK should not have visited Dallas because that's where he was killed." Sdedeo 00:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I divided presentism to create this page because a reader had confused presentism (literary and historical analysis) with presentism (philosophy of time) when they were mentioned on the same page. The original article was solely about presentism (philosophy of time) and someone introduced a short section on presentism (literary and historical analysis) for the purposes of disambiguation. A subsequent reader edited the discussion page asking why St Augustine was relevant to historical interpretation. (ie: both types of presentism are so complex that readers can fail to distinguish between them if they are mentioned together).This means that at least two readers have searched Wikipedia for presentism (literary and historical analysis) and felt sufficiently strongly to edit the text or pass comment. Given that people are looking for presentism (literary and historical analysis) on Wikipedia I would vote to keep. loxley 08:40, 17 September 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.