Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intensional statement

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 merge to Intension. This seems to be the solution which will satisfy most people. It can always be split out again later if sources are found, and there is enough content in the Intension article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[]

Intensional statement

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

Article is completely unreferenced, and hence lacks any evidence of notability. While I'm sure that something that may be called an 'intensional statement' exist, it's unclear that they warrant an article, and it's also particularly unclear that the particulars defined in this article are widely known or even correct, and with no references, this cannot be verified either way. I was also unable to find any treatment of it as a separate topic in Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. I find it suspicious that the article was created by an anonymous IP in 2004, and has had no major expansion at all. There's also very few wikilinks to it, and no really necessary links I could find. Given this, I think it reasonable that the article as-is should be deleted, unless anyone is able to back-up the material with one or more solid references. GliderMaven (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[]

Comment I agree that the article needs refs and the topic could be explained better. But an intensional statement is, for instance, a sentence in intensional logic, which is definitely a notable topic in philosophy; see the entry in the SEP. The term is used in linguistics and semiotics as well. I don't know if it warrants a separate article, but a merge or redirect to intensional logic or intension would make more sense than deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[]

Merge to Intension. The redirect could be tagged as {{R with possibilities}} if, as Mark viking suggests, there is potential for a full article on the statements per se. Cnilep (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[]

Keep or merge By 2004 Wikipedia standards, the article actually handles a notable, if an obscure and conceptually rather difficult, topic fairly well - even the lack of references was acceptable by the standards of that time, provided the article was fairly non-controversial. The problem is that the nature of the topic and the small number of inward links has resulted in the article not getting any substantial attention since then, and it has not been updated in line with our current checklist of standards. Even the article as it stands is almost certainly sourceable, though possibly with some difficulty - it corresponds closely, right down to the specific examples, with what I remember being taught about the topic as a philosophy student in about 1977, and while I rather wonder whether the article creator was using lecture notes of a similar vintage, the same material will have been somewhere in the background reading lists for that part of the course. If I can easily find some relevant sources in my remaining philosophy books, I will add them to the article, but even if I can't, they should still be available in a sufficiently good university library. Of course, the ones I remember will be fairly old (though I would point out notability is not temporary) - but the standard GBooks search comes up with quite a number of more recent reliable sources for a more up to date article, particularly if the search is expanded to the effectively synonymous intensional sentence and intensional proposition. PWilkinson (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[]

Keep or merge as suggested above. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 04:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[]

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.