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 no consensus. The article is substantially different than at the outset of the AfD. There is some support for a merge here, and that may well be worth pursuing. Given John Z's last comment, it appears that further sources may exist worth citing. — Scientizzle 18:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logic as a Positive Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod, removed by author. Pure WP:OR essay. Cites no sources; fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, it fails OR and verifiability. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-5-2008 • 03:42:06 03:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR concerns. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR Essay (wait, so personal essays are now under WP:NOT#OR? And no one told me?) and a use of Wikipedia as one's personal webspace. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to switch my vote to Neutral to see what happens with de-essayfying (Not a word? It is now) of the article to be about the book. Only time will tell. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOR mauler90 (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How are these relevant to whether we should have an article on the book? The above comments sound like they are addressed to an essay by this editor by this name, not an article on della Volpe's book. Which I might have read a long time ago, btw, know I've read his student Coletti, and the article looks like a reasonable and improvable, citable summary to me. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. What it needs is citation, and for him to understand Wikipedia policy, not deletion of an improvable article. He's said he'll try to bring it up to snuff. Give the poor bastard a chance.John Z (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you're actually right. I noticed the article was filled with WP:OR, but didn't consider it could be fixed what WP:DEMOLISH and all. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you made my day - and it's been a very, very long one - with that comment. Thank you very much, a pleasant one to go off to sleep with. Sincerely, Cheers,John Z (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncertain, probably weak delete If we de-essayify this, then we have to accept that the notability question will be about the book. The article (unless it is about the concept, but the book from the bio page points to this article) should then reflect published materials about Volpe's book. If we want it to be about the subject in general, then we might be able to take the article in the direction the author seems interested in taking it. Protonk (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article in question, I have moved my original text to the discussion page, and have left a bare-bones summary on the main page. The notability of the book itself is that it was one of the major works of Della Volpe, so if the author is considered to by sufficiently notable to merit an article in Wikipedia, then one of his major works would seem to merit an article too. As John Z points out, Coletti was a student of Della Volpe, and as things turned, Colletti was much better known in the anglophone world than his teacher, but the fact that Colletti was much better known in the US and UK than his teacher doesn't mean that his teacher and work should not be regarded as sufficiently notable to merit articles in Wikipedia. JimFarm (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My advice would be to find scholarly reviews of this book (or responses in the 'letters' section or later articles in response). The book itself is not inherently notable even if the author is notable. but honestly only one or two reviews of it in a peer review publication should be enough to assert notability. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the author. What's needed for notability of an academic book are several substantial reviews. Almost all academic books get listed in book review sections somewhere, and then show up in google Scholar. It's necessary to actually see that they have something substantial to say--not necessarily positive, of course. My own feeling is to be very conservative about separate listings for academic books. DGG (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In light of the state of both articles at the moment, merging and redirecting would not be a bad idea, but there certainly are enough secondary sources to support an article, so splitting off could be done in the future. It is one of Della Volpe's two major works. It was translated into English 12 years after the author's death in 1968, and French a little earlier, so there was real interest in it. It was expanded and published under the slightly different title Logica Come Scienza Storica in 1969. 40 google book hits under the English title, 267 under original Italian title, and 92 under the posthumous title. From the titles alone, Introduzione alla logica del Novecento: Galvano Della Volpe By Francesco G. Graceffa, Studi dedicati a Galvano Della Volpe By Carlo Violi and An Introduction to the Thought of Galvano Della Volpe By John Fraser (seems to have at least a chapter on the book) should be ample sources, restricting to books only.John Z (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, now that it has been cleaned up. Jll (talk) 16:08, 11 July 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.