Talk:The Art of Reasoning
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 Sept 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
is it now better?
- Yes, but the article is still quite sparse. – 80.203.113.142 16:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge[edit]
I am going to revert the merger that BlueValour proposed in the deletion and also instituted. I think that although this is listed as a stub (which implies that it can be extended), there is really not much more that can be put into the article. The contents of the book cannot be described since it is a copyrighted textbook, and barring some published report saying that it is THE definitive logic textbook used by colleges everywhere, or proposes some spectacular theory/reasoning, I find it hard to believe that anything can be added to describe its notability and warrant its own page.--MPW 03:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. It can and should be expanded, and the redirect is not a good idea, in my opinion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you or somebody else could expand it, then perhaps it can be ummerged again? I know that in theory stubs can stay as stubs for a while, but I think in this case since it currently doesn't have anything that warrants its own page and all the information is easily found on the author page, it doesn't need its own one until it actually gets expanded in a significant way. Or perhaps if you have time you can expand in the discussion, or at least give suggestions as to topics that it would be expanded into (that way you don't have to be so formal or spend as much time) and then I would be able to see your side more easily.--MPW 17:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- What's at the main article can stay, but more detailed information on reviews and topics and whatnot can easily be done. The redirect, as it stands, discourages such things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you or somebody else could expand it, then perhaps it can be ummerged again? I know that in theory stubs can stay as stubs for a while, but I think in this case since it currently doesn't have anything that warrants its own page and all the information is easily found on the author page, it doesn't need its own one until it actually gets expanded in a significant way. Or perhaps if you have time you can expand in the discussion, or at least give suggestions as to topics that it would be expanded into (that way you don't have to be so formal or spend as much time) and then I would be able to see your side more easily.--MPW 17:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)