Deletion of Subject–object problem

Comment: There does not seem to be a revision of the article that is not OR by synthesis to revert back to.  If a properly sourced article can be written that identifies, in philosophy, the "subject-object problem", then we can write an article ''based on those sources''.  But  until then
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: per . The claimed sourcing of the article is being done without coherence. This is really just bald original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: The article is well sourced and provides a very complete coverage of this subject as defined in its lede and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subject–object_problem&oldid=660659106#Subjective-objective_dichotomy first subsection. Charges of  or , policies that counter WP editors presenting unsupported conclusions or opinions of their own, are misplaced because there is nothing in this article of that kind. The idea that a philosophy term can be expected to have "an established unambiguously understood use" can be taken only with a smile. In any event, any doubt about the widespread discussion of this topic is dispelled by a https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22subject-object+problem%22.&num=10&gws_rd=ssl Google book search for the exact wording  "subject-object problem" (5440 hits) or http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&as_epq=subject-object+problem&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C29 Google scholar. As it is, the article has stood pretty much in its present form for several years with only minor changes. This sudden decision to delete it has appeared from nowhere. The reasons given, there being too many quotations, and that it appears to be a cut-and-paste job, are insubstantial and do not challenge the content as containing specific passages that are misleading, incomplete, or erroneous in some way. If there are objections to particular portions of this article, they can be addressed on its talk page in the manner usually adopted for handling revision suggestions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN)

Comment: This has been discussed in the works of Plato, Kant, Hegel, and many other major philosophers... Come on, just fully reference the introduction and save this article (keywords for Google Scholar: "subject object relation(s)", "issue", etc)...  doesn't apply here because the introduction is okay, and one doesn't erase an article just because there are bad parts. Discuss with the others if what is below the introduction should or should not be removed (and if most agree that it should, then accept it). It's a simple procedure to save this article from deletion (but I won't do it because I don't edit Philosophy articles). Special:Contributions/189.6.192.138|189.6.192.138
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)