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

List of philosophies

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:LISTCRUFT with no clear inclusion criteria, but generally when someone uses the plural "philosophies" it means they're selling you something that doesn't work on daytime tv, this should be soft-deleted/redirected to Outline of philosophy Psychastes (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Lots of overlap with Glossary of philosophy, could merge there. I’ll keep it, though. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
got any rationale for keeping, or WP:JUSTAVOTE? Psychastes (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure it meets WP:NLIST by leaps and bounds. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect: this page is like the outline or glossary pages but worse because it is just alphabetical with no additional information. If the ability to hover over a link to see a preview didn't exist it would be useless. Moritoriko (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be happy with a redirect if missing items were added to the glossary. They have hundreds more links in common then disperate. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though the list needs a better format, I think there is no reason for deletion. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yug Nirman Yojana

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

No indication of notability, google only turns up trivial mentions Psychastes (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Religion, and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Lewis

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

Subject was previously weakly deleted in 2010 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lewis (philosopher) (3rd nomination). Since then they have apparently published a book with some reviews, but on the face of it the article still seems to fall short of notability for an academic. BD2412 T 20:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. BD2412 T 20:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep since the last time this was up he's gone from Associate Professor at a flagship state university to full professor at an Ivy. His H-Index has gone from 10 to 18 according to Google scholar and he's continuing to publish in top journals (and book chapters with top presses). The book has been cited quite a bit and by our notability standards, if we think he's not notable, the article should be redirected to the book title and an article on the book created. Jahaza (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the book itself is notable. BD2412 T 00:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - A bit WP:OTHERSTUFFy, but if this is notable... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, England, California, Florida, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. A good citation presence in a low cited area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral on the article. The citation record is borderline for WP:PROF#C1 (although maybe strong for philosophy) and one book isn't enough for me for WP:AUTHOR. But the book is definitely notable: the article currently lists three reviews (Sebens, Shaw, and Garcia) and I found three more: : Valia Allori, Philosophy of Science, JSTOR 26551953; Ben Novak, The Review of Metaphysics, JSTOR 44806993; Alyssa Ney, Metascience, doi:10.1007/s11016-017-0232-8. With six in-depth independent reliable sources it passes WP:GNG. If the biography is deemed non-notable, it would still be possible to have an article on the book and redirect to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The topic appears notable. The prior deletion is somewhat antiquated. However, I still cannot observe a substantial enhancement in coverage regarding the subject CresiaBilli (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the last 2010 AfD has had a book published by Oxford University Press and moved from associate professor at a good regional university to full professor at Dartmouth, with good citation numbers for a low-citation field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear why all of that would make the subject notable, other than the citation numbers, which (as David Eppstein mentioned above) seem borderline, at least to me. Can you refer to any other criterion of Wikipedia:NPROF that you believe this subject meets? Because one book wouldn't be enough, generally. Qflib (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above, I note that his article-length works aren't just cited in passing; his work has started some long-standing conversations in the philosophy of science. See, e.g., the opening line of this paper. Here and here are papers in that conversation where Lewis's name is literally the first thing that appears in the abstract. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of philosophers (R–Z)

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

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

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

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

These long alphabetically ordered lists are basically unmaintainable, and the majority of them have already been redirected or deleted. See here, here, and here for precedent. Psychastes (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Philosophy. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure how much of a precedent those are. The country articles are *much* bigger topic domains than this one. Jahaza (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a matter of magnitude, there are about 12600 people under Category:Philosophers; and in my own review of philosophy pages, I generally encounter far more articles that lack any appropriate philosopher category than the other way around, so even allowing for a few miscategorizations that's probably a lower bound. Comparatively, WikiProject Myanmar seems to have about 10000 mainspace articles. Psychastes (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Lists of philosophers. Lists that big are basically worthless and they also duplicate categories. They are not actually useful for informational or navigational purposes when they combine thousands of people with various characteristics and levels of notability. The lists that break the topic down by field, nationality, or time period are more accessible and there's no good reason to keep an unmaintained master list. But geez, a lot of those are crappy bullet-point-only lists too... Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: These were originally separate but later bundled. The other AFD pages are now just redirects to this one; I'm not sure if that would cause any problems or not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of philosophy anniversaries

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

a list of when every philosopher was born and died is not remotely helpful, and impossible in practice to maintain, this is WP:LISTCRUFT Psychastes (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclosure: I was the original creator of this page) The grounds for deletion are a misinterpretation of intent. This isn't a celebration of exclusively philosphers' deaths, but anniversaries in general, in the spirit of Wikipedia On This Day. This has precedent in many other Wikipedia pages: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:On_this_day/Today https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:History_of_science/Selected_anniversaries https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/All https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_musicians_by_birthday https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Australia/Anniversaries/November
FranksValli (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Philosophy. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from article space. Do you see something common for your "precedent" pages? They are in other namespaces. Move or delete from mainspace. Geschichte (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time for this nonsense, I'm removing my vote. Do whatever you want FranksValli (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of philosophers (R–Z)

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

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

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

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

These long alphabetically ordered lists are basically unmaintainable, and the majority of them have already been redirected or deleted. See here, here, and here for precedent. Psychastes (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Philosophy. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure how much of a precedent those are. The country articles are *much* bigger topic domains than this one. Jahaza (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a matter of magnitude, there are about 12600 people under Category:Philosophers; and in my own review of philosophy pages, I generally encounter far more articles that lack any appropriate philosopher category than the other way around, so even allowing for a few miscategorizations that's probably a lower bound. Comparatively, WikiProject Myanmar seems to have about 10000 mainspace articles. Psychastes (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Lists of philosophers. Lists that big are basically worthless and they also duplicate categories. They are not actually useful for informational or navigational purposes when they combine thousands of people with various characteristics and levels of notability. The lists that break the topic down by field, nationality, or time period are more accessible and there's no good reason to keep an unmaintained master list. But geez, a lot of those are crappy bullet-point-only lists too... Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: These were originally separate but later bundled. The other AFD pages are now just redirects to this one; I'm not sure if that would cause any problems or not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of philosophers (R–Z)

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

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

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

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

These long alphabetically ordered lists are basically unmaintainable, and the majority of them have already been redirected or deleted. See here, here, and here for precedent. Psychastes (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Philosophy. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure how much of a precedent those are. The country articles are *much* bigger topic domains than this one. Jahaza (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a matter of magnitude, there are about 12600 people under Category:Philosophers; and in my own review of philosophy pages, I generally encounter far more articles that lack any appropriate philosopher category than the other way around, so even allowing for a few miscategorizations that's probably a lower bound. Comparatively, WikiProject Myanmar seems to have about 10000 mainspace articles. Psychastes (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Lists of philosophers. Lists that big are basically worthless and they also duplicate categories. They are not actually useful for informational or navigational purposes when they combine thousands of people with various characteristics and levels of notability. The lists that break the topic down by field, nationality, or time period are more accessible and there's no good reason to keep an unmaintained master list. But geez, a lot of those are crappy bullet-point-only lists too... Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: These were originally separate but later bundled. The other AFD pages are now just redirects to this one; I'm not sure if that would cause any problems or not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of philosophers (R–Z)

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

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

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

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

These long alphabetically ordered lists are basically unmaintainable, and the majority of them have already been redirected or deleted. See here, here, and here for precedent. Psychastes (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Philosophy. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure how much of a precedent those are. The country articles are *much* bigger topic domains than this one. Jahaza (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a matter of magnitude, there are about 12600 people under Category:Philosophers; and in my own review of philosophy pages, I generally encounter far more articles that lack any appropriate philosopher category than the other way around, so even allowing for a few miscategorizations that's probably a lower bound. Comparatively, WikiProject Myanmar seems to have about 10000 mainspace articles. Psychastes (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Lists of philosophers. Lists that big are basically worthless and they also duplicate categories. They are not actually useful for informational or navigational purposes when they combine thousands of people with various characteristics and levels of notability. The lists that break the topic down by field, nationality, or time period are more accessible and there's no good reason to keep an unmaintained master list. But geez, a lot of those are crappy bullet-point-only lists too... Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: These were originally separate but later bundled. The other AFD pages are now just redirects to this one; I'm not sure if that would cause any problems or not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection

(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]

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]

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

Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy

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

Declined prod. Provided sources are not independent like philosophy publications or the university connected with it. Nothing in google books, 1 hit in google scholar, limited google news hits. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Organizations, United States of America, and Illinois. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to be WP:SIGCOV, all of the mentions in news articles seem to be trivial/passing mentions Psychastes (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually get a number of hits in Google Books for this organization describing its role in the Continental reception and Continental/Analytic debates in the US. Jahaza (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in an interlibrary loan request for The Reception of Husserlian Phenomenology in North America (2019), ed. Michela Beatrice Ferri ISBN 9783319991832, which has a chapter "The Society of Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy" (pp. 267-282) by Anthony Steinbock. Jahaza (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a journal article doi:10.5325/jspecphil.26.2.0102. Jahaza (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep: Appears to be plenty of sources showing up on Google Scholar - some examples where the coverage is definitely in depth: doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99185-6_16, doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226821580-011, The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy. There are also some papers in this issue of the Journal of Speculative Philosophy but I'm not sure if that is actually independent coverage. Shapeyness (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Rama Michael Tamm

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

No evidence he meets WP:PROF, none of his academic works turn up in scholar, and no indication he meets any other notability criteria Psychastes (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, clearly fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while interesting, I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sheldon

AfDs for this article:

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

this article was previously deleted, and remade despite no further evidence of notability / meeting WP:PROF Psychastes (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The previous article, and the first nomination that led to its deletion, appears to have actually been about another Mark Sheldon; that one was about a politician (mayor), not the philosopher and professor of medicine that is the current subject. (I have no opinion on the current article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Medicine, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His job title, "distinguished senior lecturer", is one that in US universities designates someone hired for teaching rather than for scholarship but who has been at it long enough to be distinguished and senior; it is not itself a sign of notability or its lack, but it is not promising. (In universities in UK-based systems it would have a completely different meaning.) I searched but was unable to find well-cited publications or multiply-reviewed books that could lead to WP:PROF#C1 or WP:AUTHOR notability. There is a different Mark A. Sheldon with a well-cited paper on semantic file systems but even that one paper wouldn't tip the scale. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was previously a full professor at Indiana University Northwest, however. See the bulletin here for example[3]. However that's not great either, since it's not the flagship IU campus. Jahaza (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The "distinguished" in "distinguished senior lecturer" is an assertion of notability (in teaching, research, or a combination of both) from a flagship institution which in my view does (and should) count towards a WP:PROF pass but in itself, without published documentation about what that distinction was, is not itself enough to pass. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is simply no evidence provided for meeting any of the criteria in WP:NPROF and even upon searching academic sources I could not find any of the usual indicators of an academic passing NPROF#1, such as highly cited papers, published reviews of books or a detailed discussion of his work in context. --hroest 14:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the "distinguished" position and more than 400 citations on Google Scholar count towards WP:prof. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of libertarianism

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

I'm by no means a fan of dedicated criticism articles, but I think this takes the cake as one of the worst ones. This article was created 20 years ago as a POV fork of the libertarianism article and has since been indiscriminately collecting together a series of criticisms without any connection to one another. The article reads as a long repetitive list of "This person says libertarianism is bad for this reason", followed by a lengthy quote, and cited almost exclusively to primary sources, without any reliable secondary sources to provide a throughline. A cursory search on Google Scholar doesn't come up with many sources that are specifically about the criticism of libertarianism, which is instead covered within the context of the subject as a whole.

Article deletion was raised some time ago, but nothing ultimately came of it, so I thought I'd open a discussion about it now. I don't think this article serves any value to our readers as it currently exists, it is just a fork with an inherently non-neutral POV. Any relevant overarching criticisms specific to libertarianism can easily be integrated into the main article, and the individual opinions of philosophers can be merged into their own articles. Obviously I'd be happy to hear out any alternatives to deletion people might have, and possible ways to improve the article, but right now I don't see a way of fixing its fundamental issues. Grnrchst (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Libertarianism, and Politics. Grnrchst (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and since this is not a valuable WP:SPINOUT to have so there's no reason to keep the redirect. Psychastes (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Psychastes. Sal2100 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the document is 'Criticism of libertarianism', so why is it bad that it describes criticisms of libertarianism? I don't understand. 118.41.174.125 (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now per nom (to Libertarianism#Criticism). Having such a standalone article is not currently considered best practice. However, I don't think not being a valuable spinout is considered an accepted reason for deleting a redirect (WP:RDELETE) and nor would I see a need for the content to be revdeled should this have been already redirected, so I'm not quite clear on the idea the redirect should be deleted. Content can be integrated into the main article selectively from history. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Ekezie

AfDs for this article:

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

This entrepreneur's article was deleted after an AfD discussion in April 2023 (and this 2020 AfD discussion and this 2018 MfD discussion). It was nominated on the basis of lacking reliable/independent sources, but was re-published later that year. I don't see any improvement in available reliable sources on the article subject (e.g., sources published since the last deletion). The article for his company, Kippa, also seems lacking in sourcing and possibly doesn't meet WP:NCORP, so I'm not sure a merge/redirect would be too useful in this situation. Best, Bridget (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Bridget (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Finance, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day awards for up and coming but run of the mill business person. We are a charity. not LinkedIn. Protect against re-creation yet again. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am wholly leaning keep on this. Queen's Young Leader Award and Future Awards Africa definitely meets ANYBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ekezie is notable, he passes general Wikipedia guidelines, having received significant coverage from reliable sources and has won the Queen's Young Leader Award. He has also been recognized by Forbes 30 under 30 in the finance category. He is also the recipient of the The Future Awards Africa (2022), which is very notable in Africa. Send down the rain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notability has changed since I voted to delete in 2020. While Forbes 30 under 30 at this point is a junk measure of significance, we have profiles in the Independent Nigeria (2022?), Face2Face Africa (2022), Nigeria Tribune (2018), BBC (2019), and an article in The Nation about receipt of the Future Awards Africa (2022). That, + receipt of Queen's Young Leader Award satisfies me that GNG is met. I really don't think the high bar of ANYBIO is met by those two awards, but it doesn't need to be. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891 and Shoerack: I have major concerns about the reliability of many of the cited sources. I know speaking in broad strokes about Nigerian news sources may sound problematic, but see WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA (on the RSP page) for recurring discussions on the media landscape.

For example, just out of the sources you cite, I think the Independent, the Tribune, and the Nation articles read very suspect. See the last paragraph of the Independent for example: "Kennedy Ekezie-Joseph’s story is not merely about achievements; it’s a testament to the power of dreams, perseverance, and embracing opportunities [...] Kennedy’s journey encapsulates the essence of a true visionary. He serves as an inspiration to young minds across Africa and the world, showing that with determination and unwavering belief, anyone can turn their dreams into reality."

A similar quote from the last paragraph of the Nation article: "In a world where technology continues to evolve and reshape industries, Kennedy Ekezie-Joseph stands as a shining example of the innovation Africa has to offer. His trailblazing spirit, coupled with his visionary leadership, has propelled him to the forefront of the technology sector. As he continues to inspire the next generation of innovators, Ekezie-Joseph’s impact will undoubtedly leave an indelible mark on the continent and beyond."

And the last paragraph of the Tribune article: "His achievements have already inspired countless young minds across the nation, offering a beacon of hope and proof that determination and dedication know no bounds [...] The story of this remarkable achievement will undoubtedly serve as an inspiration for many aspiring scholars and will be remembered as a turning point in the nation’s educational landscape." Bridget (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point. I will strike my keep - Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Per Eddie891 above. Shoerack (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG given WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. The one potentially notable point, his fintech company Kippa, closed down years ago. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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)