Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartesian doubt

: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, without preventing a merge either way with Methodic Doubt. Davewild (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

=[[Cartesian doubt]]=

:{{la|Cartesian doubt}} ([{{fullurl:Cartesian doubt|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartesian doubt}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Delete nothing to indicate that this book/concept is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Wait The concept of Cartesian doubt is worth an article, but this newish page only contains a reference and no real content. Suggest giving it a day or to. I might add some text myself.Nick Connolly (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added some guts to the page which I think should hold its head above the icy waters of AfD until the original editor (or others) expand upon it. Worth keeping seperate from the Rene Descartes article as Cartesian doubt is a term that can be applied to work of other philosophers.Nick Connolly (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Erm merge? Darn I can't even reach consensus with myself. This article could be merged or become a redirect to Methodic doubt Nick Connolly (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Methodic Doubt. "Cartesian doubt" is probably a more common term than "methodic doubt", so maybe the merge should be in the other direction. But the two article do cover the same thing, so I'd say they should be merged in one direction or the other. Klausness (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This concept is certainly notable. What title it should go under is something that can be decided on the talk pages, or by a bold edit. Either way one of these should be redirected to the other so there's no reason to delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reverse Merge per Klausness, keeping this as the main article.Annamonckton (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2008 (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.