- 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 keep. The simple point I'm reading through this AfD is that it can be improved, even if that includes a move or changing the article content. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Relation (history of concept)
- Relation (history of concept) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dubious original essay. The title is useless as a redirect. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's "rescue list", here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Dubious nomination which does not explain how
WP:BEFORE has been followed or provide a solid reason for deletion.
AfD is not cleanup but notice that
Relation (philosophy) is just a pathetic redirect currently. I'm going to change its target to the page in question and we might then reconsider that as the new title for the page. As an example of a substantial source for the topic, see the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Andrew D. (
talk) 14:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Here is the solid reason for you: it is an essay of worst
WP:SYNTH type I've seen in wikipedia. Every second sentence is a glaring example of this.
Traditionally the history of the concept of relation begins with Aristotle and his concept of relative terms. In Metaphysics he states: "Things are called relative as the double to the half... as that which can act to that which can be acted upon... and as the knowable to knowledge"[4]
, with ref.#4 being none than Aristotle himself. If you do not see wiki-problems with sentences of this kind, then you must have a very philosophical mind. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)- That's not a solid reason for deletion because it is our
policy that "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." And, it doesn't appear that the article is that bad because, for example, one can read in the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that "All theorizing about relations in the Middle Ages begins with Aristotle's short treatise, the Categories. ..." My !vote stands.
Andrew D. (
talk) 22:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Back off. This is my opinion, which thoroughly differs from yours. Wikipedia is littered with exceptionally poor philosophical articles written in olden days including none else but Larry Sanger himself, who thinks he is a great philosopher. It looks like nobody wants to touch this gobbledygook with 7-foot pole, because all this philotalk is incomprehensible to laymen, who most wikipedians are. While serious philosophers don't want to waste time on endless bickering with wannabe filosofs. If you can rewrite it up to standards, go ahead. Otherwise I am all for
WP:NUKE.
Staszek Lem (
talk) 23:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- This is my !vote and so, per WP:BLUDGEON, the nominator does not get to shout me down. WP:NUKE is not relevant. They perhaps mean WP:NUKEANDPAVE but that metaphor is not policy and is just a crude appeal to violence. That's the sort of essay that we don't need. My !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 00:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Back off. This is my opinion, which thoroughly differs from yours. Wikipedia is littered with exceptionally poor philosophical articles written in olden days including none else but Larry Sanger himself, who thinks he is a great philosopher. It looks like nobody wants to touch this gobbledygook with 7-foot pole, because all this philotalk is incomprehensible to laymen, who most wikipedians are. While serious philosophers don't want to waste time on endless bickering with wannabe filosofs. If you can rewrite it up to standards, go ahead. Otherwise I am all for
WP:NUKE.
Staszek Lem (
talk) 23:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's not a solid reason for deletion because it is our
policy that "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." And, it doesn't appear that the article is that bad because, for example, one can read in the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that "All theorizing about relations in the Middle Ages begins with Aristotle's short treatise, the Categories. ..." My !vote stands.
Andrew D. (
talk) 22:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Here is the solid reason for you: it is an essay of worst
WP:SYNTH type I've seen in wikipedia. Every second sentence is a glaring example of this.
- Keep – but (1) move to Relation (philosophy) over redirect; and (2) remove the last two sections ( Logical relations and database theory and Relational mathematics), which do not really deal with the philosophical concept. -- Lambiam 00:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Andrew, I don't see any WP:BEFORE analysis by the nom. Further, technical note: the nom has not notified the creator, which may make this AfD invalid on technical grounds from the very beginning. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- @
Piotrus: There's nothing in
WP:AFD indicating that one is obliged to notify the article's creator prior to "the very beginning". In fact it says the opposite: after nominating, it "is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator", "[w]hile not required". In this case in particular, it seems highly unlikely that
Patnovak (
talk ·
contribs) is unaware of this AFD given that they've only contributed a few times in the past (yet are active at the moment) and have specifically alluded to this AFD on their user page.
[1] (I'm actually not sure what the policy on preemptively copying AFDed articles into one's user space is, mind you.)
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 12:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- @
Hijiri88: Fair enough, not notifying the author is not sufficient to disqualify the AfD. It is important to note it is, however, not courteous. We should be friendly to new / inexperienced editors, and the nom here did not behave in a way that is friendly/courteous, despite the fact that we are dealing with a good-faith contribution (I wouldn't demand courtesy or criticize the lack of it if we were dealing with some spam...). --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 11:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @
Piotrus: Yeah, but several of the "keep" !votes in a number of recent AFDs have not only been discourteous but I've found their incivility to be downright atrocious; poor behaviour on the part of "keep" !voters doesn't mean the article should be deleted, and it goes both ways, so this conversation is basically tangential. FWIW, I think criticizing anyone for not following the optional supplemental instructions in these processes is unfair, since the processes themselves have been made overly convoluted. At least with GAR this was a deliberate attempt to discourage its use, so it wouldn't surprise me if the same was true with AFD.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 11:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @
Hijiri88: I find the deterioration of courtesy on Wikipedia sad, if understandable (overwork, stress). Still, I'll point out what I think we can do better, and I can say that having AfDed 1000+ articles I still find time to notify the creator. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 11:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @
Piotrus: See, I see it the other way round: you've opened a lot of AFDs, so you're used to the process. Others who only open one or two AFDs a year like me (I can't speak for Staszek Lem) have to read through the instructions at AFD each time while switching between tabs and desperately trying not to leave any required step unfulfilled for more than 10-15 minutes, so should be forgiven for missing one or two of the optional steps.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 12:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ Hijiri88: I was and am under the impression that Staszek is familiar with AfDs, which is why I am making this (I hope friendly, I respect his work) rebuke :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- @
Piotrus: See, I see it the other way round: you've opened a lot of AFDs, so you're used to the process. Others who only open one or two AFDs a year like me (I can't speak for Staszek Lem) have to read through the instructions at AFD each time while switching between tabs and desperately trying not to leave any required step unfulfilled for more than 10-15 minutes, so should be forgiven for missing one or two of the optional steps.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 12:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @
Hijiri88: I find the deterioration of courtesy on Wikipedia sad, if understandable (overwork, stress). Still, I'll point out what I think we can do better, and I can say that having AfDed 1000+ articles I still find time to notify the creator. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 11:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @
Piotrus: Yeah, but several of the "keep" !votes in a number of recent AFDs have not only been discourteous but I've found their incivility to be downright atrocious; poor behaviour on the part of "keep" !voters doesn't mean the article should be deleted, and it goes both ways, so this conversation is basically tangential. FWIW, I think criticizing anyone for not following the optional supplemental instructions in these processes is unfair, since the processes themselves have been made overly convoluted. At least with GAR this was a deliberate attempt to discourage its use, so it wouldn't surprise me if the same was true with AFD.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 11:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @
Hijiri88: Fair enough, not notifying the author is not sufficient to disqualify the AfD. It is important to note it is, however, not courteous. We should be friendly to new / inexperienced editors, and the nom here did not behave in a way that is friendly/courteous, despite the fact that we are dealing with a good-faith contribution (I wouldn't demand courtesy or criticize the lack of it if we were dealing with some spam...). --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 11:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @
Piotrus: There's nothing in
WP:AFD indicating that one is obliged to notify the article's creator prior to "the very beginning". In fact it says the opposite: after nominating, it "is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator", "[w]hile not required". In this case in particular, it seems highly unlikely that
Patnovak (
talk ·
contribs) is unaware of this AFD given that they've only contributed a few times in the past (yet are active at the moment) and have specifically alluded to this AFD on their user page.
[1] (I'm actually not sure what the policy on preemptively copying AFDed articles into one's user space is, mind you.)
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 12:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Userfy Same exact rationale I gave in the other AFD applies here, just replace "1-25" with "4-19". Also, this one wasn't apparently originally submitted as a draft, but that doesn't really make a difference. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep/Redirect If the article is to be deleted can I (the article's creator) be told which specific principle or principles have been violated please so that I can reply to them prior to deletion. Just because there are a lot of other poor articles out there does not seem like a valid reason for deleting this one. I have looked at wp:synth but the examples given do not seem relevant to this piece. It is true that I have used primary sources, Plato, Aristotle etc., but it is also true that the conclusions, Peirce, Wittgenstein etc., are not my own either. There is a clear history of the subject from ancient Greece to the present day which I have attempted to show in as simple a way as possible. I agree that the title is not the best and could be redirected to Relation (philosophy) or similar. The Stanford article was written later but I will look at it and see if any editing of the Wiki article is required. Comments on individual paragraphs might be better made after a decision is made on deletion. Thank you for your continuing interest. Patnovak ( talk) 11:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ Patnovak: WP:NOR is a good guide, at least as far as my rationale is concerned. As a general rule, you should try to avoid citing ancient, medieval, or early modern (including Enlightenment) works directly as much as possible, and not build entire sections of an article around them. If you use modern critical editions and translations of these works, you should cite the version you used, not just "Plato", "Aristotle", etc. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure what this article is about. It starts with "concept of relation as a term used in general philosophy" and then talks about science and mathematics and relationship in the brain. There doesn't seem to be a single topic. The main unifying thing besides the word "relation" (which isn't enough" seems to be "three", which almost comes across as a magic number. I'm leaning towards delete as I'm not yet convinced that there is a single topic covering all the material in this article and discussed in reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. I see it as having sufficient sources. I think the better title would be "Relation (philosophical concept), but that's a minor point. I'm not certain the last section is really appropriate in the article, or whether it's being used in a different sense. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- 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.