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. kurykh 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radical skepticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Completing an incomplete nomination by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs • count) who had earlier suggested that this was original research. I am neutral. Eastmain (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Numerous Google Books hits and Google Scholar hits confirm that this is a notable topic in philosophy, albeit the current version of the article may not cover the topic particularly well. Let's tag the article for expansion, but I see no reason for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pure original research and essay-style article. Only two sources provided, one of which appears to fail WP:SOURCE. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been policy since 2003, if you are challenging something for not being based upon sources, you are supposed to look for sources yourself. Please read User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Checking just the sources cited in the article is insufficient. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Metropolitan90. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep tallnapoleon you realize a source doesn't have to be online?YVNP (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This is a position frequently referred to in academic philosophical discourse. For an online example, see the IEP entry on contemporary skepticism [sic] herethe skomorokh 16:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reliable and verifiable sources support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is clearly a notable topic, but we may have dealt with it elsewhere. For example, what is the difference between radical skepticism and Pyrrhonism? We also have an article on Philosophical skepticism: how does it differ from that? I am aware that some people favor the phrase "radical skepticism" over "Pyrrhonian skepticism," but I'm not sure that calls for two separate articles. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 12:37, 27 October 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.