Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth theory (3rd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete - Yomanganitalk 23:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truth theory

Page survived 2 prior AfDs (1,2), yet it was later redirected to Truth by the same person ([1]) who nominated it the 2nd time ([2]). That certainly appears to be a way to circumvent the conclusion of the AfD, which was no consensus. Attempts to restore the original article have been prevented vigorously [3], therefore again a listing here. I'll abstain for now --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: For the sake of clarity, I have in principle no objections against this article being deleted or redirect, but going against AfD consensus, even if the main author of the article was banned for being abusive, is not the way to go. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Changing the article to a redirect is within the bounds of reason subject to the AfD (2). If one were to count "votes" (most of which have reasons, which I won't try to weight....)
    • delete or userfy
    • redirect
    • keep (3)
    • delete (3)
    • delete or merge
    • keep or merge
  • Noting that, for the purpose of the AfD, keep, merge, and redirect are all counted as "keep", but for the purpose of deciding whether a merge is in order, "redirect", "merge", and possibly "delete" would be considered favorable, I would say that a merge "vote" probably would have succeeded. I'd lean toward merging the WP:V parts of the article (back) into Truth, but I'm not sure there are any. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Truth. As with above, but any pertinant information moved over would have to be re-written as it does read like a small dissertation paper. Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Merging following a keep consensus would be legitimate. Merging following no consensus is even more legitimate. There isn't a problematic overriding of AFD consensus visible here. GRBerry 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Then drop this AFD and merge! The problem is that the content of the article is a POV fork from truth, so in effect there is nothing (or very little) that the authors of Truth would agree to including! And that is why the article has been made a redirect. Banno 21:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is a poster child for WP:OWN, and a candidate for poster child on WP:NOR. We were handed a bill of goods by an extremely astute but highly tendentious editor who's turned out to have almost 30 sockpuppets to date. The stated purpose of this article at the time was to have a place for the more highly technical material, but it turned out to be a one-man article and not a useful one at that. Time to get rid of the headache please. ... Kenosis 22:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and be rid of it. Banno 22:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Kenosis. JoshuaZ 00:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kenosis. -- Ned Scott 12:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kenosis -- •Jim62sch• 22:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, gives the general impression of a WP:OR synthesis or essay. Then redirect. I'm taken aback, though, that Banno actually tried to change the article to a redirect again, while this AfD was still running. Sandstein 09:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kenosis. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Adding comment: With the exception of the nominator of this Afd, every single instance of replacing the redirect with the article was done by a sockpuppet of the tenditious editor mentioned, evading ban. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep i think theory of truth might be different from truth. so tread carefully please, i think losing knowledge(if that is what will happen) might make me feel bad. so if you do decide to delete please take care to keep any knowledge that may be lost. also on a different topic i think it makes me feel bad when people use words which are (as seem to me) foreign (eg kenosis) instead of simpler (but equaly effective) words in order to show their knowledge of that word, i think such action is an indication of pride, which i think is a form of self deception, and i think i don't like deception, i thank you for your time.Anon-o-man 17:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC) ... in an unussually philosophical mood.
    Kenosis is an editor. Delete per Kenosis just means 'I agree with the reasons Kenosis gave to delete'. Look up, Kenosis' Delete is the one after Banno's comment, and before Banno's Delete. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The five days are over, and there is a clear consensus for deletion. Let's close this one off. Banno 20:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nominator has made the point that a post I placed on his user talk page covered the issue better than the above statements, so I add it here for future reference: Truth theory is covered thoroughly in Truth#Major theories of truth including Substantive theories of truth: Correspondence theory, Coherence theory, Constructivist theory, Consensus theory, Pragmatic theory; Minimalist (deflationary) theories of truth, Performative theory of truth, Redundancy and related theories; Other theories of truth: Kripke's theory of truth, Semantic theory of truth. Anything worthwhile on Truth theory is already merged into the Truth article, and many theories have their own articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, then make a redirect, based on the explanation of the situation that was provided kindly on my talk page (and now here) by KillerChihuahua. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:00, 16 October 2006 (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.