Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Practical Metaphysics Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Practical_Metaphysics

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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Metaphysics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable use of two words. Anything relevant is already included in the article on metaphysics or the article of the individual cited here. Bongomatic 08:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 11:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bruno Latour is a fairly major figure, probably more in literary than in actual philosophical circles; but there seems to be more than enough here for a separate article about this concept. I'm waiting for metaphysical engineering, myself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Bruno Latour - He's the only person listed on the article as researching this. If there are others besides him working on the subject, add them to the article and a keep would then be in order. Toad of Steel (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Bruno Latour. If he is the only person to be involved in this, it doesn't warrant a separate article. Locke9k (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Certainly notable, and there is plenty of information for a separate article. — Jake Wartenberg 02:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending exact quotations. The only quotation for the use of the term uses it generically. Any form of philosophical approach can I suppose be called "practical. " I do not know specifically what Latour calls his theory--I haven't read his more recent works The article about him does not use the term. His website does not us it either, or anything similar, either in English or French [1], [2] . The many Ghits to the term have nothing much to do with him--quite a number of disparate groups & people seem to have used the phrase. In GScholar similarly, there are many uses, none by him or attributed to him or citing him. In GBooks there are a number of books with the words in the title from the 19th century on, but nothing that seems to be derived from him either. The closest I can get to quotations by him is [3] drom Pandora's Hope: "We are now faced with many practical metaphysics, many practical ontologies" -- this again is a generic use. some quotations please? DGG (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2009 (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.