- 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reasoning event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This idea is a combination of common sense and OR. The improvements made after I PRODed it make it seem worse. I don't think Wikipedia needs a article on this topic in addition to the pages on reason and reasoning. I would be interested to know what other people think, though. Anarchia 07:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable Banno 08:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick google search revealed this link.
How about merging with Natural deduction?—AldeBaer 09:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Couldn't find the phrase on the referenced article - am I missing something?Anarchia 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, it's in there. Just search the page for "reasoning event". —AldeBaer 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did, I promise! Suspect that capitals and plurals caught me out! This is not an inspiring reference/use of the phrase. I know you did not suggest that it justified an article. I do not think that it should be merged into natural deduction - which is a philosophical term/concept. This reads like a researcher came up with the definition purely for the sake of his research project.Anarchia 01:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, the article should be deleted as non-notable and non-verifiable. Interesting though that there is a reference for the term itself and some definition of it at all, although the concept is still non-notable and the reference has nothing to do with any of the content of the Reasoning event article (which reads more like it's cult-related). —AldeBaer 17:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did, I promise! Suspect that capitals and plurals caught me out! This is not an inspiring reference/use of the phrase. I know you did not suggest that it justified an article. I do not think that it should be merged into natural deduction - which is a philosophical term/concept. This reads like a researcher came up with the definition purely for the sake of his research project.Anarchia 01:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, it's in there. Just search the page for "reasoning event". —AldeBaer 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Original research. --Alksub 03:14, 6 September 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.