Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordinary language

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 redirect to Ordinary language philosophy. Overall consensus is to Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary language[edit]

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

This article contains the opinion of one person, has many many issues, no sources, is not neutral, and reads like an essay and not an encyclopedia article.. We already have ordinary language philosophy, which has it's own problems, but isn't nearly as horrid as this.Geodon93 (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the better-developed duplicate page at Ordinary language philosophy. ‑ iridescent 22:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Geodon93 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable being the subject of numerous sources such as How Ordinary is Ordinary Language?; Ordinary Language and Perception; Defining Ordinary Words for Mundane Objects: Ordinary Language and the word Vehicle; The Logic of Ordinary Language. These sources indicate that the topic is not purely a matter of philosophy such as Wittgenstein's work; but arises in other domains such as the law. Andrew D. (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that outside the field of philosophy, the topic is better covered by Plain English. I wouldn't argue against this becoming a dab page, though; looking at the history, this page is a leftover from Nupedia before we standardised how titles were handled. ‑ iridescent 23:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page refers to ordinary language within the context of ordinary language philosophy. What "ordinary language" is should be covered by "ordinary language philosophy". There's no good material for a merge here. The page reads off as a person who does not like the ideas of Bertrand Russell in particular. The page itself is strictly limited to philosophy and logic, not law. Regardless:This isn't about the topic of ordinary language but the (poor) quality of the page in particular. Based oon the edit history, it really only seems to carry Larry Sanger's personal view on the matter. Geodon93 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This should be a part of ordinary language philosophy. In fact it went through one deletion where no one even commented on it, but nothing was done, or I would have put it up for nomination! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 13:26, 16 September 2015 (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.