Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy/archive

watch

Articles for deletion

Metametaethics

Metametaethics (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)

Surprisingly, there are quite a few results on Google Scholar for metametaethics (or variants such as meta-metaethics) but almost all of them are just passing mentions. And many of the passing mentions are explicitly skeptical of the term:

• "Obviously one could assign this material to a new sub-genre, metametaethics, but it has never seemed worth while to do so"
• "one would shudder at the christening of a "meta-metaethics" for this purpose"
• "But, contra Dreier, we think that this is not ‘a problem in meta-meta-ethics’, but merely a discovery in meta-ethics"

Even Dreier (who is most associated with the term) does not seem to go into much depth about what metametaethics is in the papers I could find [1][2][3]. This Spanish paper seems to suggest that the term has not been used in a unified manner in the literature up to this point and most treatments are isolated examples without any comprehensive coverage. Having said all that, there do appear to be some sources that give more than a passing mention (e.g. [4][5]), so I wanted to hear other editors' thoughts. For me, these sources give too scattered and scant discussion to meet WP:GNG, particularly when each author uses the term in a different way (implying there is no unified concept to cover). Maybe this term will be used much more in the future, but I think it is currently WP:TOOSOON. Shapeyness (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shapeyness (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough for inclusion. Deriannt (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Ethics of simulated suffering

Ethics of simulated suffering (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)

Does not appear to be a robust philosophical concept needing its own article. Two sources provided are self-published and not covered by reliable independent sources. The "connection to catostrphic risks" seems like WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and not directly supporting the notability of the concept itself. If anything, a brief mention of ethical concerns in simulated reality seems sufficient. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the concept is notable enough in itself. But some of it could probably be merged into the article ethics of uncertain sentience. Alenoach (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Re.press

Re.press (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)

Article does not meet WP:GNG, sources are comprised of 4 personal blogs, 2 subpages from the subjects website, and 1 post from a defunct small publishers community which contained the subject. No other reliable sources can be found on the subject, and searches only turn up books printed by the subject. CitrusHemlock 23:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Philosophy. CitrusHemlock 23:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Poetry, Companies, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. It's not difficult to find published reviews of their books. There's also some coverage of them (via an interview with their founder, but independently published) at [6]. Whether that and the existing bloggy sources amounts to GNG notability is another question. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete not seeing enough for GNG Andre🚐 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of fascism

Criticism of fascism (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)

POV fork, mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what? It's a full article with seven different content sections. Only one of those sections is "Poor record in war". Also, why didn't you object to the spinoff when we were discussing this on the talk page before? Sunrise (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Err, that is because there was no consenus to fork this off, what there is a discussion about one paragraph (loss on war), which is you Vs many (so did not have any consensus). Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I originally proposed one paragraph, and edited it to address feedback over several rounds of discussion. In my reading of the discussion, I addressed all the concerns presented, after which most editors were neutral or generally supportive, except for one editor who believed it had too much weight. As a result, I declared my intention to create a spinoff where the paragraph could be included, and there were no objections.

As a result, over the past month I have been researching this topic in order to write a full spinoff article, in accordance with WP:Summary style and the established precedent on "Criticism" articles for ideologies (WP:CRITSP). The resulting article has three subsections derived from the main article, the one section we discussed before, and three entirely new sections written from imported content and my own research. But I suppose we can do an AfD? Sunrise (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

TFD seems to generally object to it. And they never changed that stance. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, hence my reference to "one editor" in my previous comment (out of 7, by my count?). Regardless, I undertook to address their concerns by offering an alternative solution, and they didn't reply (nor did anyone else) so I assumed it was acceptable. Sunrise (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment per WP:POVFORK There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, we have Criticism of … articles for Criticism of socialism, Criticism of capitalism, Criticism of Marxism

Kowal2701 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There is also WP:CRITSP: For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• True, but as pointed out above there was no consensus to create this, which came out of a decision about the war paragraph which was (explicitly) rejected for inclusion in the main article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  As above - that is not my reading of the discussion (and you didn't make any objection yourself, even though you commented). Perhaps we can get an outside view on that? Regardless, there's no such thing as "no consensus to create" for an action that has been mentioned on talk with no subsequent objection. If your issue is about that single paragraph, then AFDing the entire subarticle would seem to be the wrong venue. Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as article creator, I suppose. I don't spend much time at AfD, so I don't really know what arguments will be accepted on this point. But there is a long precedent for "Criticism" articles about ideologies (WP:CRITSP, as mentioned above), with a full list at Category:Criticisms by ideology.

Normally, I would follow the organization of WP:Summary style, making a new article when a subsection gets too large for the main article, with a summary being left behind. That is what I was doing, and it's the opposite of a POV fork. (The main article is currently desynced due to a revert, but that's a matter for talk.) Certainly there should no question over whether there's enough content for a dedicated article; for one, there's quite a few things that I haven't currently added. The fact that an editor previously raised weight concerns about some of this content being in the main article (which is reasonable, and indeed this article was created in response to that) is a further indication that a dedicated article is appropriate.

AFAICT, I think the nomination may have been based on an error? The claim that it's mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2 doesn't make sense, as I noted above. The nominator has acknowledged an error (diff) but I'm not really sure what it is. Sunrise (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to keep this. This is a matter of editorial judgment, since we all know that the sources exist. It's IMO not an unreasonable summary-style split, and since we have Criticism of democracy, Criticism of socialism, Criticism of Marxism, Criticism of monarchy, Criticism of libertarianism, etc., it is certainly not an unusual choice. If you thought that the content was better off in the main article, then Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers would be a better way to handle it than AFD, but I'd point out that with the main article already at nearly 14,000 words and over 300 inline citations, WP:SIZE is an issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SUBPOV as an article whose subject is a point of view. "Criticism of fascism", as with criticism of most influential global ideologies, is notable enough for its own page. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep OKFORK, as well as important to not conflate the movements of anti-fascism and with a critique of the political ideology. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  The shiny new xfd tool I installed failed to work, so I will retype my argument; while I do believe the article needs work, particularly on its tone, I do feel like the topic has strong grounds for an article, and there is a decent foundation here Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This seems to be distinct from Anti-fascism. Definitely a notable subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is largely redundant and lacks justification for its existence as a standalone page. The main Wikipedia entry on Fascism already provides a comprehensive, nuanced overview of its defining characteristics, failures, and global condemnation. Rather than offering new insights or advancing scholarly understanding, this article merely reiterates well-documented criticisms in a less coherent and poorly organized manner. Moreover, the presentation is overly verbose and fragmented, making it challenging for readers to navigate or derive meaningful value. Much of the content feels like a disjointed rehash of established ideas without a compelling reason for separation from the main article. If the intent was to provide a focused critique, the execution falls short; the article lacks a clear thesis, suffers from repetition, and fails to deliver fresh perspectives. Consolidating the most relevant points into the main Fascism article would serve readers better, eliminating unnecessary duplication while enhancing the overall quality and cohesion of Wikipedia’s content on this topic.TitCrisse (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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:

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy/archive

watch

Logic