Deletion of Conditional statement (logic)

Comment: The topic makes sense only as a dab page, covering Material conditional, Strict conditional, etc. The current material is a  of those articles. -- Special:Contributions/202.124.73.101|202.124.73.101
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: verify that nothing links to it (other than talk pages), and recreate as a disambiguation page.  As noted above, it's a  of strict conditional, so there's nothing here which needs to be or should be kept.  However, strict conditional, material conditional, and probably others are all examples of Conditional statement (logic)|conditional statements in logic, and so should be retained as a disambiguation page.  Similarly, Conditional statement (grammar) should be created as a disambiguation including indicative conditional and counterfactual conditional|contrafactual conditional, and possibly other examples listed in conditional sentence
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: I don't think anybody here would agree that all conditional statements are truth-functional. Hardegree's ''Symbolic Logic: A First Course (2nd edition)'' (p. 42-43) is a good source which demonstrates this, but Barwise and Etchemendy (p. 178-179) also explains it. I therefore do not recommend merging this article with material conditional on the grounds that not all conditional statements are truth-functional. Neither do I recommend merging this article with strict conditional on the grounds that that would be a |synthesis of the cited sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: This is a clear case of olicyFailure. Ironically, there is no logic here, but a personal and emotional discussion. I will not comment on this further but suggest that you two guys ask on the project page for someone else to come and fix it and do not edit it yourselves. You will never agree. This is a "very simple" issue and there are far more complicated pages on mathematical logic which have better presentations. There is no need for fighting here. When a neutral party comes over (if ever) a brief mention of logical implication at the  Proof theory|proof-theoretic level vs the issues from the Model theory|model-theoretic perspective should be made. I will not watch this any more. I will just shake my head in disbelief now and walk away
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)