Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemic theory of miracles

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. Please don't nominate articles for deletion minutes after they are created. seicer | talk | contribs 12:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemic theory of miracles[edit]

~~Unreferenced and~~ questionable notability Stifle (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely bizaree. I am currently working on the article and will provide references. This is certainly more notable than the article cunt. Peter Damian (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this article has removed the AFD tag twice. I have restored it. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't put these stupid tags on articles that are under development, and which will be well-referenced, and which are important in relation to the Western philosophical tradition. Stick to garage bands or something. Peter Damian (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless Peter has some ancient 5th century text I rather suspect he must have some secondary sources at hand...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- References added so that much is no longer a problem. Notability is still in question, however. I have reported the author for 3RR due to removing the deletion tag 4 times. Stifle (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, you gave an established editor 15 minutes before placing a PROD tag? Somewhat hasty I would have thought and not conducive to an environment of collaborative editing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look the guy is a complete idiot. Spinoza's essay on Miracles is famous, as is Hume's. And note that the Theologico-Political Treatise actually has an article about in its own right, as should have been obvious from the article. Why are we even arguing about this? Go and learn something and come back and help write an encyclopedia, got it? Peter Damian (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2008 (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.