Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strict conditional

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no other arguments for deletion. Fences&Windows 20:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strict conditional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The strict conditional is nothing more than the ordinary conditional statement used in philosophy, logic, and mathematics. Both conditional statements and strict conditionals are the same: they are both, by definition, statements for which the conlcusion is true every time the hypothesis is true. Having this extra, separate article for the strict conditional is therefore just redundant. There is already an article all about conditional statements. This page on strict conditionals should be deleted for the sake of simplification. Hanlon1755 (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I am disturbed by this nomination. Nominator is a SPA created today who has spent his/her time creating and editing a new page created today currently called Conditional statement (logic), along with some edits on related pages linking to this one. The new article is still flagged as unreviewed. And yet, nominator is already requesting that the competing article be deleted, an article that was created seven years ago and has been improved by the edits of multiple editors over that time. It could be possible that the new article is better, but that merger discussion should be happening on the discussion tabs of these two pages, not in AfD. In fact, this AfD strikes me as an attempt to circumvent such a discussion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination is effectively proposing merger by suggesting that two articles are equivalent. The topic, by this name, is notable (e.g. An introduction to non-classical logic). Deletion is therefore not appropriate. Warden (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. The nominator appears not to understand the point of modal logic, the subject area in which this article lies. In particular, it is not true, and the article makes very clear that it is not true, that strict implication is the same as non-modal implication. Thus, the deletion rationale is invalid and without a valid reason for deletion we should close this discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Perfectly appropriate article. No valid reason for deleting it.Greg Bard (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - the nomination is based on an incorrect statement, per David Eppstein. Instead, the incorrect article Conditional statement (logic) should be deleted. -- 202.124.72.133 (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Keep or Merge. I would recommend, then, at the very least merging the two articles. Seeing that "conditional statements" are more popular term used by authors, as the references in Conditional statement (logic) show, including page numbers where the content can be found, I would recommend merging Strict conditional into Conditional statements (logic). This will make the content easier to read for people yearning to learn more about conditional statements. I have worked with conditional statements in logic for years and am knowledegable on the topic. I do not at all recommend deleting Conditional statement (logic); it is a very useful, detailed, and thoroughly sourced article. Seeing that I am the one who provoked the discussion I will remove the AfD status from Strict conditional. Hanlon1755 (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is an ongoing dispute regarding Conditional statement (logic), but that's not relevant here unless that article goes to AfD. Admins, please note that the nomination has been withdrawn. -- 202.124.72.121 (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2011 (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.