Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual synthesis

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Intellectual synthesis}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Intellectual synthesis}})

Prodded by {{u|Tercer}} exactly as I would have written it, "Ironically enough, this article is itself a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Or it would be, if it cited any sources." My searches had a handful of hits that had these words together, but none related to the content of this article or established the subject as a cohesive topic. Reywas92^Talk 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 07:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per my PROD rationale. Since it was dePRODed without any justification I have nothing to add. Tercer (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Well this article is nothing like what Kant meant {{harv|Mudroch|Holzhey|2020|p=321}}, and Kantian synthesis shouldn't be broken down this way as Kant actually divided it up into types of synthesis in two different ways.
• {{cite encyclopaedia|article=Synthesis (Verbindung)|encyclopaedia=Historical Dictionary of Kant and Kantianism|author1-first=Vilem|author1-last=Mudroch|author2-first=Helmut|author2-last=Holzhey|edition=2nd|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|year=2020|isbn=9781538122600}}
• The only nailed-down concept by this name that I can find is the Kantian one. Others just aren't nailed down. And this article is no use in documenting the Kantian one. None of the content is any use, and it is at the wrong title in the wrong categories. It would all have to go. One might as well have a redlink, which we didn't know that we needed to have. ☺ Per Wikipedia:No original research, delete. Uncle G (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The PROD rationale had it right in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This at heart is approaching the whole subject as a dictionary would.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.