Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language of logic

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 userfy to User:MPeterHenry/Language of logic. There is consensus here that the article with its current scope and structure is not appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, but also some agreement that it has value and promise.  Skomorokh  16:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language of logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Declined PROD. Very thin essay that deals with material already very well covered at Logic, Formal semantics, and especially First-order logic. The title also promises much more than it gives, in that the entry only makes a small point about first order logic, and not about logic and language in general. Redundant and unnecessary entry. Hairhorn (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While in my opinion the article does make a claim that is not explicitly found in the articles existing on logic, it is still a delete (instead of merge) because the title is too general to leave a redirect to, for instance, Gottlob Frege, or more specifically, the Begriffsschrift. Still the lead sentence should be rescued if it is not incorporated anywhere yet. I have alerted the WikiProject Logic on this. --Pgallert (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thanks to Pgallert for notifying the Logic project. I am not an expert for the aspect of logic covered in this article, but after a quick glance at it I got the impression that the creator is an expert. His contribution history supports this, and it also shows that he is a Wikipedia newbie. I am not convinced that this article needs to exist, or exist in this form or under this name. I am also not convinced it needs to be deleted or renamed. But I have some vague notion that this AfD may be a bit premature. Please, everybody, try not to bite a promising new contributor. New editors are told all sorts of things, but they are not told that every new article comes under extreme scrutiny and may well be proposed for deletion if it doesn't make a case for its existence in the first week (in fact the first few minutes). Hans Adler 11:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment: No content here worth keeping. I could see a point to a survey article, maybe historically oriented, on various syntaxes proposed for various systems of logic. There's no sense in which such an article would be documenting the language of logic, and the title seems to have been driven by the desire to talk about the language that a particular logic might be expressed in in parallel terms to natural language, cf. this edit. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll hold off, per Hans' request: certainly the van Heijenoort cite seems credible. I don't see where this article is going to add anything we haven't already got. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may well be that the creator decides to merge the article somewhere, once he understands Wikipedia a bit better and realises that like Britannica we actually prefer bigger, more comprehensive articles. I just hope we can avoid greeting him with too much drama. It seems quite possible that he started a new page mostly to avoid stepping on someone's toes. Hans Adler 12:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Because this is an essay, I'd normally recommend deletion. We already have an article for the History of logic, which the creator of this article might want to edit. The rest of this is covered in our other articles on logic. On the other hand, the topic of this article is rather common on google scholar and I imagine this could turn into quite a nice article after a bit of cleaning up and a change in the topic of the main body. I encourage the creator not to stop editing if this article gets deleted, but rather focus his energy into improving the articles we already have on logic, some of which are in need of help from an expert. ThemFromSpace 04:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfication - seems the logical place for it. Dont stop Editing :) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no redirect (too ambiguous). Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2009 (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.