Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moral core

From Cleanup: Moral core - I'm not sure what this article says, or if it's even a concept. I think it should be merged with something else or clarified as to what it means. Just sloppy. Even Larry Sanger questions its validity on talk page. (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

Delete: If it has something to say, it fails to say it. The terminology is licensed, and the pronouncements aren't given any reference to history or contemporary thought. It is therefore personal 'research'. Geogre 16:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless someone convinces me that this is not "original research". Andris 15:07, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I think it says what it wants to say perfectly well. Atypical terminology (ie, epigenetics) is properly linked, and I have no idea what Geogre means by licensed terminology; none of these words or phrases is copyrighted, if that's what he means. Andris, a check of google using the search criterion ["moral code" -wikipedia -neutrality] returns some 4300 pages, some which direct to wiki wannabes (or what I call wikithieves - using wiki pages without attribution), but a large number of which indicate this term is in common use, and has a shared meaning. Denni ☯ 23:30, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
The reason I say delete is that "moral core" is in very wide use indeed. It's a common phrase. "Moral core" as a specific philosophical concept in metaphysics, on the other hand, is not a common term, not, to my knowledge, an accepted term in scholarship. If it is a common term in academic philosophy, then it is the duty of the article's author to provide some indication of this by explaining the term's development. It didn't come from Wittgenstein, so did it come from Kant? The terminology is "licensed" in that it depends upon the reader agreeing ahead of time with it, without justification. I'm no philosopher, and my reading in academic philosophy stops at about 1850, but an article ought to be providing a concept for the subjects, especially when the subjects are common phrases used in a specialized way. I don't mean to be querulous, but I want to learn from an article rather than be put off by one. Geogre 02:54, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant, as well. Andris 06:03, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. As near as I can tell, scholastic acceptance of a philosophy, insufficient development of a topic, or being "put off" by an article are not good reasons for deletion. Thesteve 21:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Reluctant Keep. While I have run into similar concepts and I *think* I've heard of this, there is nothing immediately available (e.g. thru google) that suggests it is a real common concept - indicating Delete. That said there are a large number of links to here from related pages that have not been edited away as being nonsense. I am prepared to trust the Wikipedians on Ethics, Moral Code and suchlike places. Shall ask on those talk pages. The Land 15:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Reluctant keep. Note that this article was started as a rather idiosyncratic article by the banned ex-user "24", and needs to be cleaned up further to NPOV standards. -- The Anome 09:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've heard of a moral compass, but not a moral core. Do you think that's what this person means? --The Iconoclast
Delete: essay. Agreed w/ Geogre. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless quickly fixed up with some indication of where the term comes from and who uses it and with what meaning or meanings. A meaningful stub would be better than this. It's nonsense as it stands and probably useless to anyone who knows enough to write a good article about the use of the term "moral core". Links from other articles are often not indicative of value. Some Wikipedians, quite reasonably, like searching for such short phrases and creating links. I've created links to articles that I found hideous but have left alone as not having currently the knowledge, will or time to clean up or rewrite, just as I've created links to non-existent articles. That links to Moral core become red is more encouragement to creation of a good article, if this is a reasonable topic for any article, than is leaving a very bad article. jallan 17:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)