Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 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.
  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.
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:
Purge page cache watch


Articles for deletion

[edit]
European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Healthcare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

Richard Boothby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

Nina Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • 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]
  • 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

Glory (honor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • 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

[edit]

Candidates for speedy deletion

[edit]

Categories for deletion

[edit]

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:
  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 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.
  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.
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:
Purge page cache watch

Logic

[edit]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]