Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grounded relation

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, without prejudice to a creation of a ontological investigations article under the same name. Neıl ☎ 11:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grounded relation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Seems like a piece of original research by an editor long gone. No traces in google or google books for the described meaning of the term. `'Míkka>t 22:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - For what's worth I never heard about it, nor can find about it anywhere. Goochelaar (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There are some Jon Awbrey articles that are valid subjects, but simply exceedingly confused and in need of fixing. There are others which are about subjects that don't exist. Pragmatic maxim (AfD discussion) is in the former category. This appears to be in the latter. I saw it when I was doing Proposed Deletion patrol a couple of days ago. I couldn't find any way to fix it, or any sources discussing any such thing (including all of the alternative names that have been created as redirects). It's unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable concept, and in this meaning a neologism. (I had prodded this article, but deletion was denied by an admin because of the Awbrey campaign.)  --Lambiam 05:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One thing I wonder about is whether the "sequence" of sets involved is supposed to be indexed by finite ordinals, or by all ordinals. And what is the relationship between "grounded" relations as defined here, and well-founded relations, as that concept is usually defined? We probably should seek the opinion of user:Trovatore; he's our expert in this area. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I never heard of it, and it seems a little silly to me -- the article gives no hint exactly when you would need to distinguish these from "ungrounded" relations. Also I'm not inclined to lean over backwards to give JA articles the benefit of the doubt. But there are a couple of Google Scholar hits that might be followed up -- this article mentions the notion of "grounded relation" in an outline, then never says anything more about it, in particular what it means. This one I'm not interested in paying 32 bucks for, but the Google Scholar blurb contains Rxy is a grounded relation if and only if it is logically, so the article apparently does say what a grounded relation is, even if we don't know what it says about it. If anyone has access to Axiomathes it might be worth looking up. --Trovatore (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The full sentence is: "Rxy is a grounded relation if and only if it is logically impossible for there to exist a z and a w with the same qualities (quality = substance or property) as x and y, respectively, but between which the relation R does not hold." This is not the definition or terminology of the author of the Axiomathes article, but a quotation from: Johansson, I.: 1989, Ontological Investigations, London: Routledge.  --Lambiam 18:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So this not particularly related to the subject of the article, apparently. Goochelaar (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to both the current version and the last Jon Awbrey version, a "grounded relation" is for all intents and purposes exactly the same thing as a relation (mathematics) between n (non-empty) sets. He created this fork in January 2006, at a time when he was edit warring with Randall Holmes. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary I see no use for this article. Even for a redirect it's probably not sufficiently notable. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice per Trovatore below. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete presumed OR. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice per Trovatore, below. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice in the sense that someone might someday want to write up the Ontological Investigations meaning and, while I have no opinion on whether that deserves a WP article, it shouldn't be speedied under G4. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2008 (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.