Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfection

Perfection

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article is pretty much sourced entirely from one book (as serialised in a philosophical journal). There is a large amount of paraphrasing (with very limited in-text attribution) and in some cases verbatim copying from the book.

I struggle to find reliable secondary sources pertaining to "perfection" as a philosophical concept and I fail to see how sources dealing with perfect numbers, perfect gas, perfect fifths, etc. (as mentioned in the article and in the See also section) could actually be incorporated into a cohesive article without employing synthesis and/or original research. ToeSchmoker (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The "Perfection" article has been assessed as a "level-5 vital article ... rated C-class" and as "Philosophy High‑importance". Władysław Tatarkiewicz, cited in the Wikipedia article, literally "wrote the book" (translated into English as On Perfection) on the subject. Nihil novi (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was, as far as I can ascertain, initially assessed here as B-class by a single editor and at some point in time downgraded to C. In both cases these editors are exercising their right to apply any sub-GA content assessment rating as they see fit (any editor is allowed to) so I am not sure that forms much of an argument for keeping. Its status as a level 5 vital article isn't an indication of the article's quality either - "Vital articles is a list of subjects for which Wikipedia should have corresponding high-quality articles." (emphasis my own.) I'm finding it difficult/impossible to find when it was initially added as level 4, only when it was downgraded to a level 5, but this is largely beside the point. Re Tatarkiewicz "writing the book" on the subject, I am aware - the article being based entirely on said book is the chief issue here. ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToeSchmoker: Since there seems to be agreement that "Perfection" should be a Wikipedia "vital article" – but, for an unstated reason, you object to its being based (following some deletions made by yourself) on a single source (by the world's authority on the subject) – and since you have already placed a "Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources" notice at the top, might you perhaps be persuaded to contribute to that effort? Nihil novi (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I have tried and failed to find sources that would be applicable and could be incorporated in a sensible manner sans synthesis. I would have hoped perhaps yourself, as one of the primary contributors with a clear interest in the subject (and perhaps also User:Logologist, the most substantial contributor (who has been alerted to the AfD)) would be keen to assist with the rewrite it requires, but it has been in its present state with few changes for a while now. I am not sure why the idea of a single source article with heavy paraphrasing and in some cases copying from said source is open to much question - as I've mentioned previously on the talk page it raises issues re notability, possible copyright violations and original research. Additionally, I refute your suggestion that the article is now only based on a single source "following some deletions" as 1) my deletions were reverted (but have been partially reinstated by another user) and 2) as you can see from this revision prior to any involvement from myself the only additional sources are two citations for the current Mersenne prime number count (one being a duplicate) and another citation for a single bullet point about "lean thinking". ToeSchmoker (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Władysław Tatarkiewicz writes in the book's acknowledgments, "The chapter on aesthetics was earlier published in French in Revue Internationale de Philosophie, no. 109, 1974." There are numerous publications addressing the concepts of "perfection" as applied to this and the other fields that Tatarkiewicz discusses. His book traces the evolution of the "two concepts of perfection, one strict ('perfection', as such) and the other loose ('excellence')", as they appear in the various fields discussed.

Our Wikipedia "Perfection" article summarizes Tatarkiewicz's book On Perfection. Thus the Wikipedia "Paradoxes" section (which on 24 May 2025 you deleted in its entirety) comprises 3 paragraphs, while the book's "Paradoxes" chapter comprises 16 paragraphs on 6 pages (pp. 16-21).

The concepts of perfection surely deserve a place in philosophy alongside such concepts as truth, the good, and beauty.

Nihil novi (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is a summary of a book, why is it not detailed as such and why is it not supplemented by secondary texts that discuss Tatarkiewicz's book? Should it not be better placed as a section in his own Wikipedia page? There seems to be a bit of an identity crisis as to what the article is about - is it about a concept, is it about the book? ToeSchmoker (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. C'mon. Relying on one (reliable) source is no reason for deletion, where the notability of the topic is clear. In addition to 25+ interwikis, other sources were provided on talk. And even the one source is not correct - the article relies on several sources (albeit, yes, authored by a single, but reliable - classic even - scholar). Some other sources: SEP does not have an article on 'perfection' but has related entries (Perfectionism in Moral and Political Philosophy and Perfect Goodness. Encyclopedia.com has Perfection, Ontological. Catholic Encyclopedia has Christian and Religious Perfection. And plenty of academic works consider this topic, ex. [1]. There are even books like [2]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I state "single source" as this is what one of the most significant contributors described it as in the talk page. I think it's getting into splitting hairs as to whether it's a single source (book) or a book split across several seasonal journal publications (arguably multiple sources by same author). Again, how do you propose the inclusion of these other sources (at present I cannot verify all of them but given the earlier source you provided which had nothing to do with "perfection" other than its title I'm inclined to approach with caution) without synthesis (e.g. one you have provided there is from a linguistics/language journal and going by the abstract relates to the word as an adjective in advertorial contexts)? As it stands, and is described by Nihil novi, the article "summarizes Tatarkiewicz's book On Perfection" - more appropriate texts would be those secondary to or analyses/commentary to the aforementioned. Or does the article's scope need to be changed if not actually decided in the first place? ToeSchmoker (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tatrkiewicz book is notable and should have its own article. The article here needs expansion. Again, nothing to be discussed here. Also, less WP:BLUDGEONING may help you in the long run (at AfDs, at least). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have to "bludgeon" if I didn't have to constantly reiterate Wikipedia policy. Cheers. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per SK3 - This is a broad concept article. "One source" is generally not a valid justification for removal of content, let alone article deletion. Psychastes (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A broad concept article which is sorely lacking reliable sources (plural) and has been for maybe a good 15 years (if not longer) as going by the revision history. It flies and has been flying very close to the sun when it comes to reliability, NPOV, potential copyright vio/plagiarism issues as a result of its being based entirely on a single source. Perhaps Wikipedia editing standards have in general increased since then (likely, given the article's tone is a bit colourful in parts) but what is the alternative here when contributors are not able or willing to rectify longstanding policy issues? Should it just be allowed to stand forever in its state because "sources exist" and the concept is "notable"? ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Plagiarism is defined by Wikipedia as "the representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work." The "Perfection" article, throughout, credits the source author.

Nihil novi (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There remains an entirely insufficient amount of in-text attribution, see Wikipedia:Intext. ToeSchmoker (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every paragraph has an adequate citation. Nihil novi (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~You actually have a paragraph without a citation in the Paradoxes section but~~ that's not the point, the point is closely paraphrased material is not being properly attributed to the author and instead being asserted as if objective fact. An inline citation is not enough when you have entire chunks being stripped out out of the original text (sometimes even with the author's original italic emphasis) and barely changed, if at all. ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend addressing the WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING issue on the article talk page rather than trying to claim it as evidence of a lack of notability. Psychastes (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]