Deletion of Postmodern mathematics

Comment: to Philosophy of mathematics#Social constructivism. The article is far too unclear and expository, and it is straightforward  in its efforts to collect various ideas and thinkers into a group they never agreed to join. So, how can we better serve our readers? Thinking in terms of  and -R, redirecting to Philosophy of mathematics#Social constructivism keeps the title as a search term but puts the reader in a better position to understand two important pieces of context: 1) where some of the ideas discussed in the current article actually fit in the broader history of philosophy of mathematics, and 2) the distinction between constructivist epistemology (which seems to be the thing that the term "postmodern" is being used to avoid saying in this article) and Constructivism (philosophy of mathematics)|constructivism as used in the philosophy of mathematics
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NOPAGE||WP:ATD)

Comment: Article is almost entirely based on the work of two authors: Paul Ernest and Mohammad Moslehian. This does not really seem to be a major school of thought.  probably applies as there isn't much independent coverage of the subject. Also does not seem to pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE||WP:GNG)

Comment: Meets , per the article and sources already there.  Zero compliance with efore.  https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Postmodern+mathematics%22+-wikipedia Google books and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Postmodern+mathematics%22 Google scholar are replete with sources.  ot paper applies.  There is lots of room for these theories and analytical tools.  At bottom, this is a content dispute, and not a good reason to .  ike or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions&action=edit&section=15 WP:Don't like are not arguments that deserve any weight
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:B||WP:N||WP:AFD||WP:L)

Comment: per  and .  If there are two authors then that's already enough to satisfy  and it's not difficult to find more substantial sources such as ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RNwnUL33epsC Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty''.  It may be that's there a better place or title for such analysis of the state of (post) modern mathematics such as Philosophy_of_mathematics#Social_constructivism but that's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE||WP:GNG)

Comment: For the three !votes saying that the article meets  due to the two authors' works already in the article, aren't those sources not |independent (which GNG requires)? If two people invent a theory, their own articles about the theory do not count as independent reliable sources on their theory
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:INDEPENDENT)

Comment: to Philosophy of mathematics, which is not a great article, but which is better, since it isn't full of  and excessively broad claims about what postmodernists as a whole believe. The mere existence of sources on a topic does not mean that a given article on that topic is worth keeping, and the problems with this one are too deep to be fixable through ordinary editing. Instead, it would require a top-down rewrite
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Meets  Agree with 7&6 comments above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)