Talk:Inference objection

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Notability?

This article looks like it might be an example of original research. I haven't actually visited the single cited article, but this article is very short, and seems (unless additional citations are added) to just reflect some notion the author came up with. If this were not original research, I would expect a single linked citation to be topically relevant to the wikipedia article from which it is linked. But the title of the linked article seems to indicate that the subject of the article was not informal logic, but rather concerns about manmade objects falling from the sky. Whatever the issue is, it should be fixed, and this article doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. And original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Comiscuous (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Comiscuous: It is a kind of objection. Whether it is notable or not, I don't know. Given the lack of evidence of notability and the lack of much editing activity over 15 years, I merged the content into Objection (argument) § Inference objection and redirected. If someone wants to show WP:NOTABILITY and create a proper article, they can undo the merge and redirect. But given the current state of the article there appears to be little benefit to keeping article as a stub. Thanks for raising this issue. Biogeographist (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]