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 Logical NOR; the history remains if anyone wants to merge. Keilana^talk_(recall) 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ampheck[edit]

Article is about an anachronistic turn-of-the-century term for the NOR logical operator (and sometimes NAND as well). Could not find any evidence that the term is still in significant use. Original article consisted mostly of original research by a fan of the term's inventor. Tried to rewrite the article, but could not locate sufficient secondary sources to do the topic justice. The last paragraph is still original research, but I haven't removed it since the article doesn't make much sense without it. I don't think the subject can ever spawn a decent article, nor do I believe that it passes the notabilty requirements. I would suggest changing the article into a redirect to Logical NOR as this is what the term most often refers to. (Also, the article's original author has requested that the article be deleted, although that editor has been banned, so I wouldn't put much weight on that consideration.) Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Logical NOR. Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an easy enough call to Redirect. Ψν^Psi_nu 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Logical NOR. It's probably useful to have a reference to Peirce's original symbol, but I don't think we need a separate article for it. Tevildo (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, or to a new article on the logic of Charles Peirce, where several similar very short articles could be collected. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to merge, really. Ospix (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say "merge", but like Ospix said, there's not much there to merge - most of the article contains information on the NOR and NAND operators, on which we already have extensive articles. As Peirce is obviously mentioned in both articles, a simple addition of "Ampheck" in the article summaries would suffice. Tanthalas39 (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge whatever's possible, I say. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here to merge. --Core desat 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Logical NOR, in brief "History" section. No need for the last para, and also not for the whole quote; it is sufficient to note (with citation) that Peirce observed this is a sole sufficient operator. --Lambiam 12:09, 4 January 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.