Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of the proofs of the parallel postulate

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 merge to Arthur Schopenhauer. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of the proofs of the parallel postulate[edit]

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

This has been around for a while but I only just noticed it on the daily updates because of a page move. As noted on the talk page it's just a sequence of quotes, connected by original research based on Schopenhauer's (and Kant's) writing itself. I.e. no proper encyclopaedic content, not even enough to merge into another article - not that there's an obvious one on e.g. "proofs of the parallel postulate". JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Arthur Schopenhauer. I think it's appropriate to use primary sources for a philosopher's views on a topic such as this, and I wouldn't say the selection of quotes is OR, it's basically just what everyone has to do when deciding what gets into an article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Arthur Schopenhauer There's nothing to show this merits its own article, but a redirect makes sense to me. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2014 (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.