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 delete, author request. Pascal.Tesson 15:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FS (logic)[edit]

The present reference doesn't seem to exist, if it's a book. It's not on Amazon.com nor in the Library of Congress database. (Previous references have been shown to be incorrect.) Importance not specified (and ((importance)) tag removed without serious comment). Even if the reference did exist, was a WP:RS, and the importance was specified, it could be merged into a section of formal grammar or formal language. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

((prod)) added by me and deleted by the author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the category of this article, the author claims it is in category:logic, which would make it category T. However, it aooears to fit more into philosophical logic, which would probably be category S. It clearly has no significance if considered in mathematical logic. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Motivated by vendetta by proposers' own admission.

"you leave me no choice" --A.R. edit summary

Proposer admits he does not understand the subject matter.

""I don't know much about philosophical logic" (A.R. talk page.)

I wake up yesterday and find A.R. has either reverted or negatively tagged four (4) of my edits.
Admits that he is "Perhaps" giving off an "asshole vibe." (A.R. talk page.)

Like I said, I don't play games on Wikipedia. FS is a legitimate formal language.

The existence of language FS informs us about the nature of concepts such as "theorem," "lemma," "proof," scores of others .... and everything in mathematics.

...which explains the hard on this guy has. There is a big entrenchment going on with the mathematical logic people in response to the creation of WikiProject Logic and its "philosophical" logic of which they have no care (or by their own admission, any notion).

This guy is either a genuine asshole or he is aloof and unaware that he is being an asshole (in which case I sympathize and feel somewhat forgiving). Be well all.

Gregbard 14:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "You leave me no choice" is in reference to your removal of the ((importance)) tag without actually asserting importance. As for your explanation here of the importance, if that were in the article and sourced, it would tend to indicate importance. It still probably shouldn't be under this name, as there are undoubtably a number of more notable logical systems called "FS", but that should wait until we (as a group) reach a decision as to whether the article should exist at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The provided reference does not exist. Fails WP:V unless proper references are provided. --Dhartung | Talk 15:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. The author seems to having fun at the expense of wikipedia pushing tolerance to limits. See his talk page. `'Míkka 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fake references on both FS and PG, after multiple users pointed it out, author still ignored them. Author should be reprimanded for bad faith. - Cyborg Ninja 16:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the 2nd page I have seen this new user create some havoc with within the last three days. He claims to have the book in front of him, but no one else can find it. It is this kind of editing that can throw wiki into a mess- false refferencing. Sethie 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and extreme prejudice against the author (creating nonsense articles, fabricating references, personal attacks, etc). /Blaxthos 17:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This "article" is basically just a revision of a message on this talk page. Fails WP:NOTE and violates WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCBryant (talk • contribs)
Delete. per all of the above. In addition, I did a Google search and confirmed the book is not found by Google. --Parzival418 _Hello 22:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All the reasons for deleting FS are all about the person who created the page, not the content. You guys have your corner wrapped up, I guess you don't have to work or play nice with anyone if you don't want to. As long as we can all see how it is (and everybody can), history will be the judge. I think making my point, and explaining it repeatedly with every bit of evidence that you guys do not understand the meaning of it, is probably what led to my frustration. I hope you guys are proud of your accomplishment. It isn't helping the quality of wikipedia AT ALL, just your egos. A vote like this brings WP:FAIL into sharp relief. Gregbard 23:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. Can you or will you answer any of these few questions?:

If the book exists, why is Google not able to find it?

Not every book is in Google.

Where can the book be found, precisely?

Since it was a textbook, I got it at the Associated Students bookstore at CSUC .

If the topic exists and is in any way notable, why is Google not able to find any pages discussing it?

First of all abuse of the notability criterion is destroying the intellectual integrity of the Wikipedia. There are clearly reasonable cases and clearly unreasonable cases. I think the last paragraph alone justifies this concept.

At which university is this theory or system under discussion?

Same as above, I can't really speak for the rest of the world, but some people feel they can?!

What are the names of the professors or researchers who are discussing it?

Dr. Richard Parker. Author of a bestselling logic text. However, I guess that's not good enough?

Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 23:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be well, thanks for the interest.Gregbard 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Richard Parker. Author of a bestselling logic text. However, I guess that's not good enough? -- well, if he actually is the author of a bestselling logic text, that would certainly be helpful in establishing WP:Notability and WP:V. But when I enter a Google search term of that name, "Dr. Richard Parker" I see several professors and medical doctors, but none are in logic or math or philosophy related subjects. When I enter the word "logic" along with his name, Google shows only one page of results, none of them even close to this topic. While Google may not have every book, it seems highly unlikely that if he is the author of a bestselling text, his name would not appear somewhere on some web page along with the name of his book, or with the word "logic", the subject area of his book. Considering that others have not been able to find the book or the author in the Library of Congress or other universities, it's hard to consider this reference as reliable. That's not " abuse of the notability criterion " - it's pretty much just common sense. How can we trust a reference that seems to be unknown to the world at large? No offense intended, I'm just addressing the point about the reference. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "best-selling book" Greg is referring to is "Critical Thinking" by Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker. (At least two of the Amazon.com reviews state it isn't a logic book, but there is room for debate.) It appears to have been published in at least 9 distinct editions, so it probably qualifies as a best-seller by textbook standards. Of course, my late mother's text is a Canadian best-seller by logic standards, selling over 500 copies.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. Now I see it. For reference, here are a couple ISBN numbers from Google books: ISBN 007312625X, ISBN 0874847664, ISBN 0072818816. But this book is clearly described in several places as a philosophy text, not a logic text. Does this book directly support the content of the article, or is it's value as a reference mainly to establish that the author is a notable writer? --Parzival418 _Hello 04:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be original research or deeply non-notable, and is supported by fake references.--Haemo 00:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, not really.

Delete Without references, the point seems moot. OR and fails WP:NOTE, I would think.Ravenmasterq 00:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

has reference. not or.Gregbard 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :-) Mct mht 02:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Request the article be userfied, rather than deleted, if the result is delete. Perhaps it could be merged into an approriate article (formal grammar) later, once the appropriate concept is found it merge it in to On the other hand, if the source is not in the Library of Congress database, it might be self-published. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fine example of a formal system. We do not, however, have independent articles on examples unless those examples are themselves notable, i.e., discussed by multiple published reliable sources. In this case, the author of the article has yet to provide a single example of a published reference that discusses this formal system that anyone else can find (the claimed reference is not in the comprehensive university library where I work nor in the Library of Congress catalog, and no ISBN seems to be forthcoming). Moreover, I see no reason why this formal system would be any more or less remarkable than any other simple formal system - it is the type of toy system that is used as an example in a textbook, not a system that would generate significant research interest. Therefore I think that even if one author discusses this system as an example, it is still not adequately notable for an independent article. I would favor merging this into the article on formal systems, although some of the claims at the very end need to be explained and sourced, or removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your conciliatory tone. I would be humbled and honored if the group would look at the value and place for FS in Wikipedia beyond its obnoxious contributor. Please allow either FS or some other "notable" formal system that demonstrates the same properties to be integrated into the appropriate place. Be well, Gregbard 03:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have claimed that this formal system demonstrates some distinction in the meanings of the terms proof and derivation, but that distinction seems unsupported in practice in mathematical logic and unsupported in the logic texts I have seen. If there are a large group of people who do maintain the distinction, surely one of them has described it in a paper or textbook. It is true that this is an example of a formal system that does not model any mathematical phenomenon, but beyond that it does not appear to have a great deal of significance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author of the book is on the faculty of the philosophy department at the school where Gregbard says he bought the book. [1] Even the man's own bio only mentions Critical Thinking, not Introduction to Symbolic Logic. It's likely self-published; naming the publisher "Sinful Enterprises" seems consistent with such of the author's sense of humor as can be gleaned from his bio page. Considering it seems to exist nowhere else, it's probably the only book in which this formal system is set out. It is, no doubt, intended as a pedagogical example only and is not set out as a formal system with any wider application. Such an example in an introductory textbook used at only a single school -- a school noted far more for its party atmosphere than its academics -- isn't what we ordinarily think of as "notable". TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap shot. Irrelevant. You don't really know anything about the intellectual integrity of the school at all do you? Gregbard 10:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregbard, I don't know why you have such a powerful emotional stake in this article, but you really need to let it go. As Arthur said , it's not a cheap shot at all. When I was in school I used at least one textbook that the professor had published himself: it was perfectly suitable for the course. That doesn't mean I write an article about one of the examples in it, no matter how useful that example may have been for conveying the ideas being taught, unless that example became widely known and imitated.

As for the "intellectual integrity of the school", the fact that CSUC isn't known as a center of philosophical thought is certainly relevant, and not at all cheap. I'm sure a dedicated student can receive as good an education there as anywhere else in the CSU system, but its reputation is well-known. [*ttp://www.snopes.com/college/admin/playboy.asp] My parish's rector is actually an alumnus (he of course did not receive his theological education there, only his undergraduate degree) and I merely echo his sentiment. TCC (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I wouldn't look to a parish rector for an objective look at a "party school." I certainly wouldn't echo anything he said either. My goodness. Think for yourself. This is all just propaganda and your rector just buys into it. Chico State has a wonderful program in philosophy. It is the only CSU of the 23 that has a program in teaching logic and critical thinking. We party hard here, but we work hard too. That is the nature of a dynamic intellectual environment. You ought to try it. Gregbard 14:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is implying, or even stating, that a professor's textbook for his course is self-published, impune the integrity of the school. (The included clause is a cheap shot, but doesn't significantly affect the rest of the comment.) To phrase it in a way which doesn't insult anyone, Richard Feynmann's self-published course notes would also not be usable in an article unless others in the field referred to them, even if nicely bound, and he wrote QED Press as the publisher. (Although they probably would have been published on DVD by now by CalTech, but he's been dead a number of years.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial formal system; single difficult-to-verify source does not establish notability. Gandalf61 11:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because everyone else was. :( - J.

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.