Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematosis

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. deleting because of the lack if sourcing, we should only merge sourced content Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematosis[edit]

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

not notable; undeniably coined by Quine, article makes no claim of notability beyond that fact. Terms are not elegible for a speedy deletion, even without a claim of notability. {{Prod}} removed by article creator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked this up in Quine's book ("Quiddities"), and it turns out the original is very funny and very insightful. Gregbard has turned it into... something else, but that could be fixed. If the topic was notable. I am afraid it isn't, but I am sure the Quiddities are. So I suggest renaming this article and enlarging its scope. Hans Adler 20:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Willard Van Orman Quine Certainly not notable on its own, but the Quine article isn't overly long and could probably support a sentence or two on this (admittedly funny) neologism. 67.118.103.210 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete or smerge to Willard Van Orman Quine. I haven't read the Quine book; if in the judgment of those more familiar with Quine this is a point worth putting in his bio, then fine. As a standalone article I am tempted to suspect that its main purpose is for Greg to tweak the mathematics editors. --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A guilty conscience needs no accuser. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very same could be applied to you since this pretty much confirms the article is a bad-faith WP:POINT exercise on your part. But that's unsurprising, really 71.139.41.169 (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There are articles about all kinds of syndromes, crimes, problem behavior, logical fallacies, etcetera. There is no cause to take things personally. That interpretation of things is 100% a product of your own bad attitude. Your comment is conspicuous in how unnecessary it is, you must feel very threatened or something. Hey listen, I just want to account for a lot of foundational material in logic articles, and that is a wonderful project. If you see that as a threat, that's POV on you. All of my contributions consist in subject matter not POV. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How totally disingenuous. Why else would you feel compelled to chime in with your moralizing 'a guilty conscience needs no accuser' if you weren't interested in (as Trovatore quite aptly puts it) "tweaking the mathematics editors". I'm not threatened by your tiresome whinging about how mean "WP:MATH' are to you (And how the page on formatting mathematics articles can be mean to you is a mystery). Not threatened, just bored. 71.139.11.9 (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything bullies hate, its someone who defends themselves in an attack. It's consistent with the cowardly anonymity, too. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "smerge" a typo or some bit of AfD jargon I'm unfamiliar with? Paul August ☎ 04:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short for "slight merge". It means merge, but not very much. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are lucky you can read the original definition here. It's worth it. Hans Adler 21:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me at least more of Quine's text was available here. Paul August ☎ 17:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per ip UltraMagnus^speak 11:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not notable enough for its own article, so delete, or merge (perhaps to "Quiddities"). If the content is kept it needs to be rewritten more faithfully. What's there now paints the "syndrome" in a more serious light than Quine intended. See for example Hilary Putnam's Realism with a Human Face (Harvard University Press, 1992, p. 268): "In his book Quiddities, ... Quine pokes fun or grumbles good-naturedly at various pet peeves. (The essays on Artificial Languages, Extravagance, Mathematosis, Usage and Abusage are wonderful examples.)'" Paul August ☎ 04:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete with no merge let's not reward bad behavior. 71.139.41.169 (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous uncivil attacks. The article is in good faith and you have a bad attitude. Myself, I have a wonderful attitude: it doesn't matter if it ends up deleted because it will just move to Wikipedia essay space. Do the votes of anonymous editors count at all? That would be pretty questionable. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote, for one thing, it's a discussion. As to your other point please review Wikipedia:IP#Anonymous_users, Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too 71.139.11.9 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first is just an essay, the second just documents technical permissions --UltraMagnus^speak 17:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless. I'm done with this anyway, engaging with Greg on any level is about as fruitful as shining a penlight into a black hole 71.139.11.9 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

71, it probably would be better to register an account if you want to participate in procedural matters, as opposed to making non-controversial edits in mainspace. It is frustrating to argue with a voice having no fixed location. In your case it's easy to find your contributions in this particular discussion, but it aids understanding when editors can look up your contributions elsewhere and get a better idea where you're coming from in general. --Trovatore (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to understand you perfectly clearly. You admit you are incapable of communicating in a civil manner toward the purpose of improving article content. Whatever account you are being sock puppet for should be banned at some point. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per ip and UltraMagnus. Shanata (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Thanks for pointing it out, the original text is quite funny. It might make a good anecdote in Quine but the current text is just wrong. I think it is a case of the thing I keep coming across of people saying of others what's true of themselves. Dmcq (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term you are searching for is projection. I would be quite fascinated about exactly why you think it is just wrong.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'it' referred to the article in wikipedia. In my opinion the article is a very POV and unfunny summary which does Quine a disservice. Dmcq (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This term does appear to have been used elsewhere in the literature besides Quiddities. Google books, for instance, turns up the The legacy of Ludwig Von Mises by Peter J. Boettke, Peter T. Leeson [1] which introduces and defines the term independently of Quine. Other references to the term, of which there are only a few on Google books and Google scholar, appear mostly as references to the Quine's article rather than a critical commentary on the term itself. There simply aren't enough secondary sources. Le Docteur (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Bottke's and Leeson's summary is accurate, Mises's meaning for the term seems to have little to do with Quine's. Interesting though; good find! --Trovatore (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not wholly different though; one of Quine's paragraphs is about (what he sees as) excessive mathematization: that it is better to speak of a subclass than of the corresponding truth function. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to a rewrite summarizing neutrally the several distinct things Quine considers mathematosis and describing it as Quine's opinions, in a book modelled, as its preface says, on Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge At this point the article is little more than a dictionary definition. Accuracy and notability issues raised by other editors are troubling as well. Ray^Talk 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is not notable enough for its own article, merge into Willard Van Orman Quine, per above.--Pink Bull (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem notable enough for its own article; delete. But I wouldn't object to moving it to Quine. Crepuscular Dawn (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into pernicious influence of mathematics on science, writing this new article using these sources: [2], [3] etc. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps userfication is appropriate? Le Docteur (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of any notability whatsoever, and I don't think it's significant enough to warrant merging to Willard Van Orman Quine. If we were to write an article on the book, that might make an appropriate merge target, though I'd suggest rewriting it from scratch. Huon (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2009 (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.