Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free play (Derrida)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Free play (Derrida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTDICT and not WP:Notable. Derrida was a philosopher and polymath with countless neologisms to his credit and many other unique connotations to existing expressions. A few of these, like Différance have broken out and achieved notability and have been studied on their own terms way beyond passing mentions and do deserve an article, but this is not one of them. In addition, the entire article consists of two Derrida quotations. Suggest transwikify content to q:Derrida and perhaps redirect the page to one of these:
but honestly I don't which one. There is also Event (philosophy), but Derrida is not mentioned there; maybe Phlsph7 could help out with this one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Philosophy. Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- redirect I looked on Derrida and other than the link back to this article I don't see any mention of this concept even in the talk pages. If there is a meaningful difference between a neologism and a philosophical concept then I think this falls more in the latter camp. However, I would support redirecting this back to Derrida and if talk page consensus there suggests splitting it then it can be resurrected.
- Czarking0 (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- delete, no merge/redirect , A couple of quotations which do not explain what the heck "freeplay" is. It appears there are no backlinks to the article which are not from Derrida's templates. So no evidence from secondary sources of the importance of this concept, neither in the wider philosophy, nor in the "Derrida Universe". So I see no need to clutter Derrida's bio. --Altenmann >talk 06:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- no transwiki to quote: no reason. Just as well you may transquote the whole book. Only for the quotes which some RS deemed notable it makes sense to transquote. --Altenmann >talk 09:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- comment: @Mathglot: thanks for the ping! I'm not sure how to best handle this type of case. It's not Derrida's most influential concept, but there are some secondary sources, like [1] and [2]. I don't know whether they are sufficient to justify have a separate article rather than including the discussion in a parent article on Derrida or Derrida's philosophy. Maybe in principle, one could make an argument for notability. However, the current content, consisting of a minimal explanation and two quotes, does not really justify a separate article. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Outside the whole framework, the current article pretty much incomprehensible. Extensive cherry-picked quotes are of no help, because Derrida's writings are not for feeble minds. --Altenmann >talk 08:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)