Dilemma of determinism ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A deletion voting was very quickly ended without appropriate number of users participating. The article is about a well-known problem in philosophy, known perhaps since ancient times, described by Hume and called "dilemma of determinism" by him (you can find about it in " Hume's fork"; actually it was Boethius who first described it in Christian times, but he did not use the term). Later a famous separate lecture by James was PRECISELY about this "dilemma of determinism", i.e. the falling of human freedom in the category of either "necessity" or "chance" (the lecture "Dilemma of determinism" was then included as a chapter in his book). So the term was rather "coined" since that time (James was a major 19-th century thinker). Many later philosophers, including J.M. Fischer, C. McGinn, P. Russell, also accept and use this name, as already established after Hume and James. As it concerns an important question mark about the problem of free will and the term itself already exists in professional use and in books, I think it deserves a separate article.

No good reason for deletion except "protection" of children, but the latter worry asserts that the topic is indeed important and, therefore, is a joke in a place with such mission as Wikipedia. Overturn. Piotrniz ( talk) 22:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Here's an archived version of the article: [1] – it includes the quotes from modern professional philosophers. Piotrniz ( talk) 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• endorse. This is out of order. The editor disputing the has not tried discussing it with the closing admin. They have not given a valid reason to overturn. Not enough participants? I could easily find a dozen recently closed AfDs with less that have been closed without issue. And that is the only plausible argument: the rest is an argument that might have been made during the discussion but is not a valid reason to overturn. In short: that you disagree with the outcome is not a reason to overturn.-- JohnBlackburne ^words _deeds 23:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Did you mean to endorse the appeal John? ---- Snowded ^TALK 06:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Endorse at Deletion Review means that they endorse the original decision (in this case deletion), Overturn would mean they supported restoring the article. Davewild ( talk) 06:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• • Admins seem to have ill will in this topic (maybe for cash) so I brought it publicly before the society too. Not only the number of participants in discussion was small (4), but the deletion is essentially hard to understand at all (you can just as well bring 4 friends of an admin who present absurd reasons within 5 minutes and then announce deletion of the page "Russia" or "Google"). If Wikipedia was so small that there was no place for such pages, then it could be understood, but in fact you have pages about music singles, single songs. Even if this article were just about the book by James and his lecture, I see no reason why keep it offline, whereas the problem is actually broader, the name Dilemma of determinism denotes a broader problem than just the famous publication (proof: it appeared in Hume's, before James). It is nice that opponents bring some people here but in light of the fact that you have pages even about CD singles here it is absurd that the dilemma of determinism is unknown to Wikipedia. Piotrniz ( talk) 03:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• reject. Of course there is a 'dilemma' of determinism, but this is fully discussed elsewhere in the article on Free will. This article was just the usual synthesis of barely connected quotes that we saw in the other deleted articles. Peter Damian ( talk) 06:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Still, there is a publication called the "dilemma of determinism", so why would it have no page on Wikipedia? You have pages on other such publications, such as the "On the Freedom of the Will" essay. I would recreate such article precisely about that publication, if you don't mind. (Besides, the collection of quotes is a noteworthy thing, it shows how the argument passed through the centuries and even millennias. Such historical knowledge is, after all, knowledge, why would you hide knowledge.) Piotrniz ( talk) 07:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• reject per Damian, also the "Maybe for Cash" accusation by Piotrniz is surely enough to add to the existing block record? ---- Snowded ^TALK 06:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• note to nominator. dRV is not a platform for attacking other users. If you continue in this vein I will close this review. 09:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse - ran for a week, half a dozen participants who argued for deletion, no other outcome is possible. A new article should be possible (a quick search certainly suggests it's a worthwhile topic, and Free Will is already far too big for my poor grandmother and her 300 baud modem.), if someone wants to do it. Wily D 12:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply