Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-axiomatic reasoning system

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-axiomatic reasoning system

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

Scholar hits only for a few publications by a single author, some are cited but no evidence for broader acceptance as a scientific concept. a13ean (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add the category, which should be "T", and can't figure out how to add it now. =/ a13ean (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD debates (Science and technology) category added. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! a13ean (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the theories/systems coming from Douglas Hofstadter's lab. N is dubious, although there seem to be a few researchers (really, just a few) who consistently cite P. Wang's articles on "non-axiomatic reasoning". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a name for a specific topic, I found it represented in Google scholar only by the works of P. Wang, without enough citations or related works by other scholars to convince me of its notability. There are other hits, but with a broader meaning that does not confer notability on this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any article that mentions a "though leader" and cites only that person sounds dubious. This is not my field, but think the more common term is non-monotonic logic? But not sure a merge is worth it here. W Nowicki (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is right at the borderline: several publications, but all by the same author and none with >100 cites (per google scholar). However, there is a book out now and the publisher appears to be legit, and that with the peer-reviewed publications tips the scale to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesser Cartographies (talk • contribs)

Keep - Borderline is good enough for me. ~KvnG 21:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Theories do not have to be accepted in order to be covered here, they just have to be noticed. When dealing with borderline topics, and in the absence of other criteria, one of the ways of looking at it is the importance of the person who developed it. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as referenced only in the works of "thought leader" Pel Wang. Possibly rewrite to an article about the book, which seems marginally notable, but not all books published by World Scientific Publishing are reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DGG notes "one of the ways of looking at it is the importance of the person who developed it" which seems to clearly point to this being unimportant. I read the first chapter of the book and I admit to being irritated by the fact that the author uses "axiomatic" to mean something other than what everyone else uses it to mean. The book states that he has been working on this for 30 years. If it had any significance many more people would have referenced it by now. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 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.