Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loki's Wager (2nd nomination)

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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loki's Wager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem notable as their is little usage or sourcing outside of it's coinage Zubin12 (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't even know how to delsort this… ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found a couple references [1][2], but I'm not convinced there's enough out there to support a stand-alone article (as opposed to a mention in some other). XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, rewrite as a notable myth, mention fallacy in passing. BTW, the fallacy part seems to be a yet another example of wikipedian "citogenesis", but alas the term is used now in scholarly articles [3]. I'm pinging the article creator user:Kendrick7, maybe they can reveal the source of their wisdom of 2 August 2006. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Links 2 and 3 are actually to the same paper. XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for pinging me. Not citogenesis, just a matter of me losing track of the source I read in college, as I explained in the last AfD back in 2009.[4] It's still a kind of fallacious argument that people run into from time to time, so it's of little surprise that sources more recent than the article itself have found having a name for the concept useful and so continue to propagate it. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's a whole article on the use of the argument in fiction as Quibble (plot device). But, times being what they are, it shows up in real life too, to which various sources attest. I've beefed up the sourcing as best I could in light of the AfD. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important article for the philosophy of science and the demarcation problem. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:00, 11 August 2018 (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.