Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logic in Islamic philosophy

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. postdlf (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logic in Islamic philosophy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by an author who has since been banned. The resulting major cleanup left this a two-sentence stub that has little hope of being expanded. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, really? I'm no expert on this, but really it would kind of surprise me if RSs couldn't be found or if it didn't pass GNG. Islam, like Judaism, is pretty well-known for an intricate logical framework, if I'm not mistaken. (This is not a "keep" !vote per se; I'm not personally in a position to refute the nominator's claim, but I'm kind of skeptical.) --Trovatore (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand. I don't know much about philosophy but I'm pretty sure this is a legitimate topic. We should have an article on this subject. My point is, all we have are two sentences and some see-also links. Let's delete this and maybe at some point in the future an editor can write a responsible version. I don't see the utility in retaining a stub indefinitely. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (cackle) @ 08:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom: "I'm pretty sure this is a legitimate topic. We should have an article on this subject." Being a stub is no reason for deletion. If there is concern that editors creating a new article based on the pre-stub history of this one would introduce its biases, a history deletion might be appropriate. Dricherby (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASZ is an essay, and not one to which I would subscribe. Is there any authoritative guidance or persuasive reasoning to explain why we should keep a two-sentence stub? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with all of ATA either, and I'm not sure what value the stub really has, but formalities aside, it definitely does not seem to be the usual practice to delete an article just because there's no one immediately available to enhance it to a useful state. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Nominators are expected to give a policy-based reason for deletion so you (Chris) kinda shoulda checked that out already. :-) Anyway, no worries. Wikipedia's deletion policy says, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Since you feel there should be an article on the topic, the only problem is that the one we have at the moment is too short, and that can be solved by regular editing. Since article topics are supposed to be notable and notability implies that there's enough material for more than a stub, we shouldn't have articles that can never be expanded beyond a stub, but this doesn't seem to be one of those. (Actually, WP:STUB defines a stub to be a short article that has the potential for expansion.) Dricherby (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 18:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was originally written almost entirely by the community banned User:Jagged 85, who was also the subject of one of the largest cleanup efforts on Wikipedia. The stubbing of this article was part of that cleanup. Here is an old revision of the article, that may contain some source material for expanding, but beware that very little that Jagged85 wrote should be considered reliable and sources would need to be checked and triple-checked for accuracy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article in its present form is truthful, then it obviously has a lot of potential to be expanded. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judging from the external links alone, this topic has a lot of potential. Let's keep it around, and hopefully some scholar in the area who views Wikipedia will be so appalled by the coverage that they'll take to editing the article. Ray^Talk 16:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Islamic philosophy is the route by which much of classical Greek logic came to medieval logic. Avicenna, [Averroes]], and Al-Farabi are major names in both the history of logic and Islamic philosophy. Cf. SEP entry on Arabic and Islamic Philosophy of Language and Logic]. This is a very significant topic. --- — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we snow keep at this point? Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hurry? The discussion only has a couple more days to run anyway. Dricherby (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2013 (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.