Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy

WP:DSPHILOSOPHY

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:

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 as 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.
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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Philosophy. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Articles for deletion

European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Healthcare

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

Disputed PROD (contested by a since-banned user without explanation). Lacks any evidence of notability. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, Europe, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Boothby

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

No indication of notability beyond routine academic publications and research SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 01:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 01:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough book reviews in the article as nominated for WP:AUTHOR. Possibly speedy keep WP:SK3 as the nomination statement does not actually address any notability criterion let alone the right one; whether one thinks his research routine is irrelevant for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews for at least three of his books here, here, and here meets WP:AUTHOR regardless of how many papers he's published. nf utvol (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Nfutvol, I added those to the article. Xpander (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, Connecticut, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject seems to meet WP:NAUTHOR easily. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Power

AfDs for this article:

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

Per request by (claimed) article subject at Talk:Nina_Power#Request_to_Delete_Page, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is among the things to consider.

This article has some history. There was a delete in 2012 (BLPREQUESTDELETE), and the current article history starts in 2016. David Gerard and Red-tailed hawk WP:BLARed it in December 2023, and the article has been protected twice since 2024 [1] So, Wikipedians, what do you want to do? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and United Kingdom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is close enough to being a case of WP:BLP1E that a request for deletion should be honoured. The history of previous requests for deletion means that this claimed request to be the subject should be taken at face value, though it would be even better if they could officially establish their identity. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "Can someone with moderator status please delete my Wikipedia page on the basis of lack of standing or whatever it is? Like most of the site it's been taken over by a deranged lunatic who believe that lying is a means to an end. I'd really rather not have a page at all." Twitter 10:31 AM · Jul 25, 2025. cagliost (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I can understand the frustration, but this person seems well-known to the public at this point. Good or bad, things happened; so long as we report on them neutrally, there should be no issue. We don't censor articles simply because people don't like what they say about them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Nor because they simply don't like Wikipedia. "Like most of the site...taken over by a deranged lunatic" -- this is not a good faith request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I assumed that meant the person that sued them... I suppose they could be talking about Wikipedia here, I tend to tread lightly around these requests. I didn't think Jimmy Wales was that controversial. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  It's not nice (and IMO incorrect), but fwiw, it was off-WP and not really the "request." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Limited notability. Elixer777 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. There are a couple of book reviews of "What do men want" which could support an article about that book. There is a single article about a protest about a speech she gave. The bulk of the article is about a lawsuit, which is WP:ONEEVENT and not a particularly interesting or notable one. cagliost (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the article now. There are many reviews of both What do men want? and of her 2009 book One Dimensional Woman. Jahaza (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~: to the article about "What do Men Want", seems to easily pass AUTHOR notability [2], [3], [4], [5]. This was all in about 10 seconds of Google search... I'm having a hard time understanding how she's considered marginally notable? Could redirect to the article about the book I guess, I'm almost ready to argue that she's notable herself. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She's also gotten critical notice in the USA [6]. Easily passes AUTHOR at this point. I suspect she wants the article deleted due to the issues around the lawsuit, but that helps build the article, her views have been debated in media and that she got sued over them. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  We don't censor things here, and an article about a non-American, female, 21st Century philosopher really helps the gender bias issues we see in Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - [7] is a review of "What do men want" (and not one from a "reliable source"). Agree that an article about "What do men want" is easily supported. cagliost (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b We also already have a (well-justified by reviews) article about One Dimensional Woman, so a redirect to What Do Men Want? (book) isn't really fitting. Jahaza (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if an author has TWO well-supported articles of her works, that's AUTHOR. I'll change the !vote above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How does two notable books pass WP:AUTHOR? cagliost (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what good authors do, is publish books that get people talking. Their "collective body of work" part in AUTHOR Oaktree b (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    
    "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These two books are not "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." cagliost (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is, just the first of her book seems a rather significant work of feminist theory. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So significant the article One Dimensional Woman is a stub only 25 words long. Yeah, right. cagliost (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is meaningless. It just means nobody has worked on the article much. There are 90 citations for Ome Dimensional Woman on Wikipedia Library. Simonm223 (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And Google Scholar indicates nearly 400 citations of One Dimensional Woman too. Whether you have heard of it and whether Wikipedia editors have properly developed the article is irrelevant. She's a notable academic. And a controversial one. And, frankly, an interesting one for looking at thd intersection of feminism, materialism, anti-commercialism and political reaction. Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    
    That something is a stub at this moment is literally meaningless, determined solely by what the specific audience of Wikipedia editors is interested in. We have more words written about lightsabers than the cultures of many African nations. I would wager the African nations are more important. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At present it looks like the result is going to be Delete. If you create an article on the book before then, we could do a redirect. Otherwise you could create a redirect later. cagliost (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cagliost, the article on What Do Men Want? (book) was already created in 2023 and the current article on One Dimensional Woman was created in 2024. Jahaza (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Although the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR, most of the article is about a lawsuit, taking it into the territory of WP:ONEEVENT. The subject is only minimally notable. The article history seems problematic for her, so I think we should honour her request.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the author of two very notable books about which we have articles and which have many reviews in places like The Guardian, The Times, The Times Literary Supplement and academic journals. Her 2009 book is showing up on academic syllabuses and in articles like this from Verso[8]. Arguments that this is a case of WP:BLP1E and of not meeting WP:AUTHOR are clearly wrong.Jahaza (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out we already have articles for her two books. But that does not mean she passes WP:AUTHOR — she doesn't. cagliost (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, that actually does mean she passes NAUTHOR. Anyone who writes more than one notable book is (if there's one we usually just merge it to the book). PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "Anyone who writes more than one notable book is [notable]". No, that is not true. cagliost (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  IMO, 2 books with WP-articles doesn't necessarily equal "a significant or well-known work", context matters. And like (almost) all SNG:s, NAUTHOR falls under "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The GNG itself is a rebuttable presumption, so that's not really much; just one of her works seems rather significant in the realms of feminist theory. We can delete anything provided there is consensus, that's the "Presumption". PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The point of the SNG is that if we have, say, an author with two books with three reviews each, we presume that they're notable and don't have to dig and dig for additional sourcing to "prove" it. But here, we're well past that point, where there are tens of reviews of her work, syllabi[9][10][11][12] and reading lists[13][14][15][16] that include it, and she's being referenced as a figure with whom people generally interested in the field of feminist theory would be familiar[17] and profiled in general interest, if highbrow, magazines[18]. Jahaza (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "if we have, say, an author with two books with three reviews each, we presume that they're notable". Nope. We have well-sourced articles for the books: that doesn't imply an article for the person. cagliost (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I agree, two books does not count as a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work." The book articles are well sourced, but for an article on Power, we need sources about Power, not the books. cagliost (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This is simply not the current consensus regarding authors. Jahaza (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Says who? cagliost (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stated above, the author has at least two works that have been critically reviewed. We also have the bit about the lawsuit, which helps show further notability for the individual. She's moved past only being notable for one book, now with a few works critically analyzed and has been talked about in media after the lawsuit. That's miles beyond what we see for most biographical articles here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable by a few different events and we should also note that WP:BLP2E does not really exist. I also find it suspect for a public figure to ask for a deletion if there is critical info that is allowed as per WP:PUBLICFIGURE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reposted on blpn. It really doesn’t sit right with me that we want to delete an article because an account claiming to be Nina powers is arguing the article is “filled with lies and unsubstantiated claims made by a severely disingenuous and malicious third party”.

if it was a lie, there should be reliable sources to prove it. As is there is more than enough coverage of the trial that pushes the other way. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:NAUTHOR on the basis of One Dimensional Woman alone for which WP:SIGCOV is trivially easy to demonstrate. I honestly don't understand the deletion rationale beyond that a person claiming to be her dislikes the article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Also mentioned in a recent LRB essay as a notable example of a specific and influential intellectual milieu: Richard Seymour "emerged from the mid-2000s network of bloggers that also included Mark Fisher, Nina Power and Owen Hatherley". Also mentions her political veiws: "Unlike [Christopher] Hitchens, or indeed Power, whose work has taken a reactionary turn" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpm1989 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a simple notability question, this is a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE question, and I believe it should be honored for figures at this level. As far as I'm aware, SNGs aren't a factor in whether subjects are eligible for BLPREQUESTDELETE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is that Power isn't a "relatively unknown subject" - at least in the community of left-wing theory types I move in she's an incredibly well-known, and controversial, figure. This is part of what I mean about it being trivially easy to source mentions of One Dimensional Woman. That book had significant impact and he later reactionary turn caused a lot of hand-wringing. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of people and organisations that are well-known and controversial among the left-wing theory types I move in - that doesn't really mean anything for notability criteria, which most of them don't pass. - AndreyKva (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that she is well known in left wing circles doesn't count for anything if it can't be backed up with sources. cagliost (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I believe she meets WP:AUTHOR. One Dimensional Woman and Power's ideas were widely discussed and reviewed at the time, and her work was included on many reading lists. Her role at the time as an influential left-wing feminist isn't obvious nowadays from a cursory google. and hasn't been clear to date in the article (which in terms of word count has been dominated by the Turner legal case). Her rightward turn and very different book, What Do Men Want?, appears to have also had traction in many circles on the right and has been widely reviewed. She has also been widely published as a commentator for various mainstream publications at different times. — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Her role at the time as an influential left-wing feminist isn't obvious nowadays from a cursory google". If it can't be substantiated with sources, the article shouldn't exist. cagliost (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author of two notable books. The article is very thin. The authors' two books seem to pass notability for reviews. Cut it down severely maybe - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do these "nexus" articles help much? Not much point having an article purely to link to two other articles. cagliost (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subjects good-faith request. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a low-profile individual as a quick Google search finds an article published two days ago in The Critic. PamD 07:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. An article written by her has zero influence on her own notability. 95.129.20.23 (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Message for Nina Power: if you feel inaccurate material has been added to your biography, feel free to contact me either on my user-talk page here or via email at MutantPop@aol.com with your concerns and we can go over things and see about getting errors rectified. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR USA ///// Carrite (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, there is ongoing discussion at the article talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the nom, and I now say Keep per article improvements and [19]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing my vote from Delete per improvements to the article and the subject (who requested the deletion) having since changed her mind on the matter. - AndreyKva (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete - we are not a fix-it service for barely notable people. That said, I like to encourage article rescues. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the article is kept there is zero reason to include the reception of the books here, since the books have separate page. Inclusion here seems to be coat racking criticism of the books on her, which isn't helping. Masem (t) 14:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In an article about an author, it's reasonable to include something about the content reception of their books, if there are decent sources. People who want to edit the book-articles and expand those can do that. For a very WP:OTHERCONTENT example, Dan_Brown#Writing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note - per [20] it appears that NinaXPower is no longer pursuing WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE deletion. That's not to say that there aren't already other good arguments here supporting preservation or deletion (or something else) but this ought to be considered. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all: I'm totally happy to let the reality dictate what ought to be done here. I note that in the past there was a page for What Do Men Want? but not an author page, because the book had been reviewed in three mainstream publications (or whatever the bar was for notability of a text). I initially requested deletion because I was misled by the way in which the page had been taken over by person/s who wished me ill (I thought they would just be able to keep re-editing it negatively and misleadingly), but a balanced page as it now is - well, up to you guys! Thank you for all the thought here, I do appreciate it. NinaXPower (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for Business and Society

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

Declined prod. Not seeing any indepth coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glory (honor)

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

The purpose of this article is not clear. It seems to be a WP:NOTDICT violation largely duplicating the scope of Kleos. I have merged the remaining Greek content to that article and I request that this be redirected to Kleos. The remaining content, the section on Jorge Manrique, does not seem relevant to the topic of "glory". Toadspike [Talk] 14:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Greece. Toadspike [Talk] 14:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The notion of glory as honor or renown is discussed at length across philosophy (e.g., Paul J. Silva, Res Philosophica, 2018) and theology (e.g., Hans Urs von Balthasar’s multi-volume The Glory of the Lord), easily satisfying WP:N; while the Greek-specific material can be trimmed or merged back to Kleos, the broader, cross-cultural concept is independently notable and should remain in a standalone, properly sourced article. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aeon Sentinel, we already have an article on glory in Abrahamic theology: Glory (religion). Do you see a need to split discussion of glory in Abrahamic theology across two articles? I am no theologian, but this article is currently focused on glory as personal honor/fame/saving face, which I believe is not what glory is generally taken to mean when referring to God.

The first source [21] mentions "honor" once, in a quote. The second source I am not able to access in full, but the Internet Archive has one volume [22] which doesn't mention "honor" at all. I don't see why these sources cannot be used to expand Glory (religion) instead. Toadspike [Talk] 21:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kleos, seems a fork basically. At first, I thought this was referring to Glory (religious iconography) when I saw the AFD. Metallurgist (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already merged all the relevant content. Toadspike [Talk] 08:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Glory (honour), as a topic, ought not to redirect to Kleos, since the Greek notion of kleos is only one culturally specific manifestation of the broader notion of glory in the sense of honour. I think it would be better if Glory (honor) were turned into a redirect to the disambiguation page for Glory, and if we replaced the first bullet point on that disambiguation page (currently "Glory (honor), high renown, praise, and honor obtained by notable achievements") with something more like: "Honour, in the sense of high praise obtained for glorious achivements". Dionysodorus (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems sensible to me, so I'd support it. I only proposed Kleos as a target since the content of the two pages is very similar. Toadspike [Talk] 10:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Philosophy deletions

Refeudalization (via WP:PROD on 23 March 2025)

Candidates for speedy deletion

Categories for deletion

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Logic. 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:

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 as 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.
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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Logic. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Logic

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)