Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combined Ethical Thinking

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Ethical Thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Zero hits on google scholar and google books. Edited twice in its history. The editor who began the page wrote on my talk page that he was taught it by his lecturer, but wonders whether the lecturer made it up. The concept is virtually a form of moral pluralism, without any justification given for holding the position. P.S. 'moral pluralism' is not the same as 'value pluralism', so don't pay too much attention to the contents of that page when comparing with 'Combined Ethical Thinking' - I kind of hope you will just trust me on that one. Anarchia (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. —Anarchia (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nominator demonstrates lack of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources, fails WP:N. (wikipedia's first AfD for "something my professor made up in class one day?") Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:V and WP:NN. --Brewcrewer (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Pete.Hurd. Only notable ghit appears to be the creators own site.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per the above (N and V). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment could not find any ghits either, but I caution the wisdom of it: We don't accept Google as a proof of notability, but we accept 0 ghits as a disprove? --.Tom. (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, not exactly a disprove, but when taken with the complete lack of sourcing in the article...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.