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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Philosophy.
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:
This is 95%
original research (borderline
WP:FANCRUFT) that has a handful of "sources" that themselves are largely poorly-cited pop website listicles, which only support a small portion of the claims here. The
Iron Maiden#Musical style and influences section itself is much-better sourced and comprehensive, and sufficient without this page.
ZimZalaBimtalk 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as an unnecessary and short spin out. This sort of content should be covered at
Iron Maiden#Musical style and influences. Very little of it is sourced and not redundant to the main article, so no need for a merge, and I don't feel like it's a particularly likely search term either, so probably doesn't require a redirect either.
Sergecross73msg me 20:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe it should be covered in this section of the main article. As an author, I think someone should try to use the content from may art to create something correct.
RALFFPL (
talk) 17:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Far too many of the entries in your article are unsourced, and without a source, would violate
WP:NOR. Until this is addressed, it can't be placed in the main Iron Maiden article.
Sergecross73msg me 13:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Unnecessary and pretty trivial.
Shankargb (
talk) 02:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete but agree with
User:Sergecross73 that the literary and historical themes should be covered on the band's main page, I will try and make a start on that today.
Orange sticker (
talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As the author of the article I improved the content, added sources, links, data, and more details. Originally I planned to add to the main article info about the lyrics of Iron Maiden - mainly describing the inspirations and connections between their music and dramaturgy and lyrical content. The problem is with the band's catalog which contains numerous songs based on historical events, films, novels, etc. You may check my article and choose fragments to use them. And referring to the deleting process - if we have a bunch of info about the lyrics on the artists' arts on Wikipedia, so - why can't I write a little about IM ones? Not interesting content (?) for whom and why? I can not understand this kind of limitation and restriction policy. Regards
RALFFPL (
talk) 17:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As the author of the article Please read
WP:OWN as you cannot assume ownership of an article whether you created the article or not.
HorrorLover555 (
talk) 17:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, it's about semantical context. I called myself an "author" regarding the fact I have started publishing the content, nothing less and more. Ownership is no reason, I'm just a member of the community and trying to develop some articles on Wiki. Referring to the subject of Iron Maiden lyrics I try to improve the article. Regards
RALFFPL (
talk) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Unnecessary and clearly not sufficiently useful or encyclopedic information to justify preserving the page history by redirecting.
Psychastes (
talk) 18:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak delete A topic like this certainly seems like something that could justify an article depending on how much research academics have poured into the subject (for example I'm sure a dedicated
Beatlemaniac could make one for said band), but in this case I don't think the article justifies itself with enough quality sources.
★Trekker (
talk) 21:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BIO. References cited are unclear, poorly formatted and mostly incapable of verification. Unencyclopedic tone. Created and edited by sockpuppets.
Geoff | Who, me? 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Although the article indeed has a lot of problems, these cannot be a reason for deletion. (The most major issue is the large amount of unsourced content, which may simply be removed.) The topic appears to be notable. There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources:
[1][2][3][4][5] (The last two sources are solely on the details of his life and works.)
Aintabli (
talk) 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I did not find any references to the information added to the wiki page in the citations you provided. All I found were statements by those authors and nothing else.
HeritageGuardian (
talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I have checked all your citations from 1 to 5. None of them has any references to the claims made in them and in this Wikipedia article. If you think that I missed them, then you are welcome to present any documentations.
HeritageGuardian (
talk) 05:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not the point of those links.
Aintabli (
talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I took a look to this page
https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal. There are a lot of absurd statements, like Safavid King Sultan Hossain visited some village in nowadays republic of Armenia. Safavid King Ismail gave an order to M. Abdal and etc. They are absurd, because kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery or diwan. There is no record of King Sultan Hossain visiting some village in that region. It seems articles about this person are hoaxes.
HeritageGuardian (
talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The Azerbaijani-language version has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia.
Aintabli (
talk) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I was unable to read this citation. I see that it was published in 2001. What kind of document or any evidence it has? thx
HeritageGuardian (
talk) 20:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - references to this article do not cite any documents that could support claims made in it. All of them are opinions of their authors.
HeritageGuardian (
talk) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)reply
An
essay full of
WP:OR presenting a novel in non-encyclopedic and often unclear language. The sources don't validate "social spirit" as a unique concept in philosophy; instead, this essay appears to represent the author's own views. Given a lack of BEFORE references to "social spirit" in the context of this article I can't figure out a way to improve this that would allow it to stay.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 15:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep per SK1 as the nominator has given no coherent deletion rationale - the cited sources in the article that have "social spirit" in the title (i.e. Shablin, Smirnov, and Lazarev) clearly indicate that this meets
WP:GNG as a notable topic. Probably it needs to be renamed "Social spirit" and any
WP:OR/
WP:SYNTH should be removed, but
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.
Psychastes (
talk) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is not an essay because it is written based on reliable sources. Here we should also mention the “Handwörterbuch der Soziologie”, compiled by
Götz Briefs, in 1931. The concept of “social spirit” was presented in that dictionary as known one. This also justifies the mention of him on Wikipedia, even from the point of view of the history of sociology. There were other works in German in the twentieth century, but due to the Second World War, research in this direction was complicated. This article appears to be an essay because there are no sources on this topic in English. But in general in science, this concept has its place. Russian articles contain abstracts about social spirit in English.
Никитааа (
talk) 06:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
GNG is not just about sourcing. It’s a two-part test, and the second part is: “It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.” My (valid) deletion rationale was WP:ESSAY and WP:OR, which are both aspects of that policy.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 10:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dclemens1971 - given that you added a "globalize" tag to the article, does that mean you're conceding that this article meets
WP:GNG? because if you believe there are other perspectives that should be included in the article that's not exactly compatible with deleting it. I'm also changing my vote to Speedy Keep as it's plain that no coherent deletion rationale has been given.
Psychastes (
talk) 16:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I added the tag during New Page Review because it very much appears to have a narrow perspective on a concept covered elsewhere encyclopedically on Wikipedia. I absolutely do not concede that this means it meets GNG, see above.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 10:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The statement that “examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Russia” is untrue, or at least a misunderstanding. On the contrary, this article deals only with examples from ancient and European history and sociology. This article does not contain even a single example from Russian history precisely because the idea of a universal tripartite social structure is very rarely found in Russian sources. The editor of this tag is probably motivated not by objectivity, but by the "canceling of science".
95.10.7.132 (
talk) 16:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Every single source that refers directly to "social spirit" is in Russian. The other sources in the article refer to other concepts like "geist" and "national spirit." That's why the article reflects a Russian perspective.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 21:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
But still, the article does not contain a single EXAMPLE dealing with Russia. This is the untruth in the tag. Or is the problem that Eastern European authors are considering a Western European retrospective?
And one more question: if you admit that the article refers directly to reliable sources, why do you think that this is an essay?
88.250.24.46 (
talk) 14:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Essays can refer to reliable sources. The problem isn't the sourcing, the problem is that this is pushing a particular intellectual theory in an unencyclopedic manner.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
To be precise, not all of the authors of these sources are Russian. For example, Lazarev is Jewish by origin, but only Russian-speaking. And these are two big differences. So this is also not a completely correct statement about exclusively Russian perspectives in the article.
Никитааа (
talk) 16:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
First of all, the tag says the "perspectives in this article deal primarily with Russia," not exclusively. And what could you possibly mean constructively by saying that Russian-speaking Jews can't represent a Russian perspective?
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 16:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Primarily, perspectives in this article deal with science.
176.220.242.60 (
talk) 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I hope more editors will come, evaluate the article and sources and participate in this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete a poorly-translated version of
Никитааа's (also-mediocre) ruwiki article, that doesn't understand English idiom well enough to claim that "social spirit" is a concept in English.
Geist would be the only plausible redirect target.
Walsh90210 (
talk) 22:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (
prod,
CfD,
TfD etc.) related to Logic.
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: