Talk: Emergent philosophy

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 20 to Apr 26 2004, kept as consensus was notreached. Discussion:

From Cleanup: Emergent philosophy - POV, is this a legitimate term?

I'm pretty sure it is.. though it makes more sense to me as a historical perspective. (Keep.) Rhymeless 04:15, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- After looking around on google, I can't seem to find anything worthwhile, and change my say to neutral.Rhymeless 05:13, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Appears to be a new euphemism for "psuedo-science psycho-babble." Check the external link for an outstanding example of this. :-) But you can't delete my article - it's a legitimate Emergent philosophy. I was going to say "kill it before it multiplies," but it has been here for quite a while and attracted only one emergent link. Against my better judgement - keep. SWAdair | Talk 04:47, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Delete: personal essay about a made-up term. Only Google hits are for WP & mirrors. Didn't appear in any of the philosophy books I've read. Article offers no substantiation; sole linked-to article isn't about "emergent philosophy". Wile E. Heresiarch 21:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Google shows it is a not a legitimate topic. - SimonP 21:52, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Its not original research, they're just talking about new, not yet accepted philosophies. Though I've never heard this term before, the article could be put to good use. -Seth Mahoney 20:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Cribcage 05:43, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Open Encyclopedia