Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudonomenalism (0th nomination)

Pseudonomenalism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Completely nonsensical new-agey rubbish. I don't think the term even actually exists, as Google produces only hits from Wikipedia and Wiki knockoffs.--Deglr6328 03:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Unverifiable and private -- original research. Geogre 05:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --*drew 05:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete or redirect; seems redundant to solipsism. Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I've read about this. -- Chaz
- By the way, I think it should be spelled Pseudonominalism. -- Chaz
  - The above comments are actually by the anonymous IP, User:198.82.71.55. •→Iñgólemo ←• 00:27, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
- Where you read about it would be helpful. •→Iñgólemo ←• 00:27, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
It is neither nonsensical new-agey rubbish (not every position varying from realism is "nonsensical new-agey rubbish") nor anything like solipsism (there's no statement that the believer believes they are they only one that exists). It actually sounds a little like operationalism in philosophy of science. However, neither JSTOR nor MIND return any search results, either, so delete. -Seth Mahoney 07:16, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: appears to be a neologism; likely irrelavant. •→Iñgólemo ←• 00:27, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
Delete - rubbish. Step into the teleporter... - Tεx τ urε 18:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.