Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy

WikiProject Philosophy Deletion Discussions

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Philosophy. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Philosophy|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Philosophy.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy/archive

watch

Articles for deletion

Gerardus Everardus Tros

Gerardus Everardus Tros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Does not meet notability criteria Kid Fabulous (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, never nominated an article before, so apologies if I'm missing anything out here. Anyway, the subject does not appear to be in any way notable. The only significant references to him are on his own website and a handful of blog postings. As per his website, his philosophical output seems to be complete woo, so I think it is extremely unlikely he has received significant coverage in any reliable sources. Kid Fabulous (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Just to be clear, our inclusion criteria for philosophers have very little to do with whether their philosophy is "serious" or "woo" — metaphysical writers can still receive reliable source coverage that analyzes their importance (e.g. Helena Blavatsky), and non-metaphysical philosophers can still fail to receive that. What's determinative here is not so much his subject area, as his complete lack of any sources he didn't write and publish himself. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete It seems that no notice has been taken of this person's work. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC).

New racism

New racism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This article should be deleted or merged with its author's article at best, by the reasons that I stated in its 'Talk' page. I will copy them here, so upcoming user's do not need to go there:

"I agree, this article should be deleted. It hardly fits Wikipedia's criteria of notability. It must be remembered that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that summary-only descriptions of works are specifically singled out as non belonging to it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information). Other than its first paragraph, this article barely resumes the concept provided by Barker (along with some citations, which does not necessarily recognizes it as of wide academic interest or respectability) and should be dealt with in that author's own article as a subsection. Having roughly a dozen of citations about a term or work is not enough to consider it 'highly cited', as Wikipedia's guidelines state that these kinds of subjects must be (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes); specially when other works and concepts have them by hundreds. Not to mention, also, that in academic disciplines that are so narrow as the study of sociological tendencies in late XX century European media, further guidelines of the Wikipedia apply: "Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. (The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline...)". Therefore, in agreement with Alfietucker, I shall start the procedures to delete this article. Miguerum (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Identification in Burkean rhetoric

Identification in Burkean rhetoric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Survived PROD in 2006 apparently because the book discussed in the article is notable. There are no secondary sources so this appears to be original research to me. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: completely original research framed as an essay, something Wikipedia is not for. SITH (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. There are sources with very substantial coverage of Burke/identification/rhetoric. The Legacy of Kenneth Burke, whole chapter; Critical Responses to Kenneth Burke, 1924-1966, Kenneth Burke and the 21st Century. SpinningSpark 19:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: Per User:Spinningspark. With so much unsourced, and only an actual general source supplied, there are very possible instances of original research or at the least plagiarism, as well as issues of NPOV. On looking at the sources provided above it seems to be an editing issue, deserving of tags and possibly a rewrite, but not a notability problem deserving deletion. Otr500 (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. There is clearly a case for moving the article to A Rhetoric of Motives, and it should all be rewritten. But there is no need to be deleting it. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Soroush Dabbagh

Soroush Dabbagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR, his highest citation count is 1, total citations is 23, and doesn't appear to meet the position criteria either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Citations are not good indicators for people working on humanities (particularly philosophy). He is best known for his works and views in Persian. Particularly his views on Hijab have been criticized: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. He is also known for his debates on BBC. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Citations are not good indicators for people working on humanities (particularly philosophy): False so long as you compare like with like. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC).

  I was paraphrasing WP:Academic: "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information." Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Published much but cited little. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC).