Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy

WikiProject Philosophy Deletion Discussions

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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.

Purge page cache

watch

The Indian Story of an Author (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)

Non notable book, fails Wp:GNG, wp:NBOOK and wp:SIGCOV. Possible COI & UPE. UNI is paid for press release, New Indian Express is an interview, and rest two are promotional articles by wp:NEWSORGINDIA.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Whimsical Lover
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief and
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Live the Sullied. Zuck28 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Language, Literature, Philosophy, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBOOK with WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues. The author appears to have self-published this book out of frustration with the publishing process, leaving most of the pages blank as a protest. It strains credulity to believe that anyone would care enough to write about a blank self-published book, unless they're being paid to do so. Astaire (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional and fails WP:NBOOK. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical games (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)

Unfortunately fails WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:GNG. This is a tricky one. Let's go through it:

1) The article creator has an egregiously obvious WP:COI, authoring 8 of the 17 cited sources, including one source that is quoted substantially and summarised in-text. Significant parts of the article are uncited and pretty obviously coming from the author's philosophical opus.

2) The question then with WP:NEOLOGISM is: do the other sources define or discus a "philosophical game"? The nomenclature is not used in any of the other sources I can access. This suggests it is non-notable and a misguided attempt to cover a general exploration of philosophy as explored vastly through the lens of the video game medium rather than a clear treatment of "philosophical games" as a discrete category. It is just too broad. By the taxonomy given, most contemporary narrative video games might be said to have philosophical dilemmas and dimensions. The writing is a noble and good exercise. But a Wikipedia page is not the best outlet for that exercise, because ...

3) The article is inappropriate for encyclopedic coverage, waxing on like an WP:ESSAY instead of clearly and articulately defining the subject matter. This strongly suggests it's both an unfocused exercise of the article creator and not a concrete, definable subject matter worth encyclopedic definition. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for WP:TNT. There are obvious WP:COI issues - you obviously can't write a WP page based on your own work fairly. Also many of the paragraphs are unreferenced suggesting WP:OR. There appear to be references but someone else needs to have a stab at writing this page. JMWt (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Written like an essay. Might be notable under "Philosophy in video games" or something, but it would need a full rewrite regardless as it's currently unencyclopedic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – or maybe add (cleaned-up) content under some video game topic/article, esp b/c SEP (and other phil lit) uses games to mean the usual compsci/logic games (not video games). - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete oh look another AI slop article Metallurgist (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José María Balcells Doménech (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)

(Note: Trying without Doménech yields many more results (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL))

WP:PROF. Article deleted for similar reasons in eswiki and cawiki. Author also tried to recreate the material there, but it was denied (WP:COI suspected). Author removed PROD. Article clearly written as a CV. SFBB (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SFBB (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. No citations found in GS for this scholar. Can WP:Author help? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • • I think one can find citations in GS if one looks under José María Balcells (without the Doménech). Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, some respectable citations but not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• • I found two reviews of his books [1] [2] (the second one a co-edited volume). It's not enough for WP:AUTHOR for me yet, but maybe there are more? His academy memberships also might make a plausible case for WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems to me a noted old (perhaps semi-retired) Spanish philologist. Notable by multiple reviews of his works. Have tried adding reviews of a couple of his books but am old myself and struggling a bit with formatting and Spanish naming conventions (Msrasnw (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Also having checked the Spanish Wikipedia deletion this seems to me to have been done without anything by way of a proper review of what was submitted but just on the basis of it having been deleted many years ago. The author of the article seems to me to have claimed there it to be a new article and he was unaware of the earlier one. I think the Spanish procedure doesn't look to me to have been a fair one. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)) See here: (https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tabl%C3%B3n_de_anuncios_de_los_bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Solicitudes_de_restauraci%C3%B3n/Actual&oldid=168308882)[reply]

@Msrasnw: The eswiki process was previously discussed on the Village Pump, as the author brought the subject there before the notification. If you look at the argumentation used to reinstate the article, everything refers to WP:PROF; and based on that guideline, the article cannot stand. It’s also important to note that the article had previously been deleted due to suspected COI (same as now).SFBB (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Thanks to Msrasnw's efforts there are now enough book reviews to convince me of WP:AUTHOR. (For writing in Spanish in the humanities I wouldn't expect citation counts to be very informative; reviews are better.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nice work Msrasnw! Meets WP:NAUTHOR. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Eventually, the article might be kept under WP:AUTHOR, but if you take a look at it, it’s entirely framed from the WP:PROF perspective. As such, it does not satisfy that policy and should be deleted, as it's merely a collection of irrelevancies. If it is decided to keep it based on WP:AUTHOR, then it needs to be completely reframed accordingly. SFBB (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: WP:PROF#C3 is certainly not met. None of those memberships are anywhere close to what is listed in WP:PROF#C3. SFBB (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think looking at his membership of the Reial Acadèmia de Bones Lletres de Barcelona (founded (1729) via - his being an Elected National Corresponding Academicians No 39 seems to me at, or close to, meeting WP:PROF#C3 (Msrasnw (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep. I agree that the book reviews are enough for him to meet NAUTHOR. I also have no idea what it means for an article to be "framed from the WP:PROF perspective" — it's very common for humanities professors to meet NAUTHOR rather than NPROF, since in many fields the majority of influential academic research is published in the form of books, so there's obviously going to be an overlap between describing someone's research and describing the books they've written. Nothing about this article needs to be "completed reframed" on the basis of him meeting NAUTHOR rather than NPROF. MCE89 (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: you (retorically) ask what it means to be "framed from the WP:PROF perspective".

If the article will be kept from the perspective of NAUTHOR, and should focus on the work of the bibliographed as an author. It should includes the most important books and other works. Instead it is completely written as the CV of an average prof, not fulfilling NPROF. It reads:

- Intro: His research focuses on...

- Section 2: Academic career (nothing particularly remarkable; just the typical CV passage of every prof)

- Section 3: Research (again: nothing particularly remarkable; research areas, invites lectures, etc...absolutely standard)

- Section 4: Memberships (nothing particularly remarkable: he's one of about 200 active members of a literary society in Barcelona - the Reial Acadèmia de Bones Lletres de Barcelona- ..certainly very much different from being elected to the very selective Royal Society, and not much different from being a board member of an academic journal. And NPROF is quite clear that only editors or even chief editors attain notability for things like that.

- Section 5: Selected publications (just a list like a standard CV of an academic). If relevance is gonna be argued on the basis of NAUTHOR, this should be the main part...but its not.

I’ve seen this kind of thing many times: it’s quite clear that the Wikipedia author is connected to the person being bibliographed - the images are marked as the WP author's own work, and there’s a strong insistence on having the subject published across multiple wikis. The article reads very much like a typical professor’s CV. This very strongly reeks of COI (and this always annoys me). SFBB (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the article is a "Research" section that is almost entirely focused on the books that he has written as part of his research. The selected publications section is also a list of books that he has written. Again, this is perfectly normal for professors in certain humanities fields, where an academic's research and their books basically overlap. If you think there if information about his books that is missing from the article, feel free to add it. I have no idea if the page's creator has a COI, but even if they do, that's not relevant to the question of notability. MCE89 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glory (honor) (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)

The purpose of this article is not clear. It seems to be a WP:NOTDICT violation largely duplicating the scope of Kleos. I have merged the remaining Greek content to that article and I request that this be redirected to Kleos. The remaining content, the section on Jorge Manrique, does not seem relevant to the topic of "glory". Toadspike [Talk] 14:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Greece. Toadspike [Talk] 14:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The notion of glory as honor or renown is discussed at length across philosophy (e.g., Paul J. Silva, Res Philosophica, 2018) and theology (e.g., Hans Urs von Balthasar’s multi-volume The Glory of the Lord), easily satisfying WP:N; while the Greek-specific material can be trimmed or merged back to Kleos, the broader, cross-cultural concept is independently notable and should remain in a standalone, properly sourced article. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aeon Sentinel, we already have an article on glory in Abrahamic theology: Glory (religion). Do you see a need to split discussion of glory in Abrahamic theology across two articles? I am no theologian, but this article is currently focused on glory as personal honor/fame/saving face, which I believe is not what glory is generally taken to mean when referring to God.

  The first source [3] mentions "honor" once, in a quote. The second source I am not able to access in full, but the Internet Archive has one volume [4] which doesn't mention "honor" at all. I don't see why these sources cannot be used to expand Glory (religion) instead. Toadspike [Talk] 21:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Kleos, seems a fork basically. At first, I thought this was referring to Glory (religious iconography) when I saw the AFD. Metallurgist (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've already merged all the relevant content. Toadspike [Talk] 08:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Argchymist (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 is about a term that appears to be used almost exclusively by new-age author Alexander Roob, without any coverage from secondary sources that would make the term wp:notable.

Neither Google Scholar nor even straight Google yield any result. Google Books has two early modern primary sources, Coelho's novel, and one other modern new-age source.

There are no wp:reliable secondary sources to base an article upon here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Philosophy, Magic, and Spirituality. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Clearly not notable. Probably just a pun on German "arg" (bad, wicked) + Alchymist, especially since the Rosarium philosophicum was published in Frankfurt. Can't find secondary sources either. Iluzalsipal (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Look closely at the image. The caption reads "The ALCHYMIST..." (not "the Argchymist..."). If the author is going to plainly misrepresent the caption of an image, that doesn't speak well for the other source that is offline. I suspect this may even be a hoax. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, the caption is also wrong in the source of the image. Iluzalsipal (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not notable, author doesnt even have an article. Metallurgist (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- lacks SIGCOV even in a general websearch for the term, to note, the secondary citation does pop up in our Wikipedia Library.Lorraine Crane (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism in South Africa (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)

This article has languished since 2008, effectively functioning as an advertisement for fringe viewpoints. Much of it is uncited, and its only citations are to obscure libertarian websites. Most of the article was written by Trevor Watkins, who namedropped himself throughout the article. A cursory search on Google Scholar doesn't bring up much for either "libertarianism in South Africa" or "South African libertarian".

As this article is, at best, a blatant piece of self-promotion with no citations to reliable sources, and as there is little significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources, I'm nominating the article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Libertarianism, Politics, Social science, and South Africa. Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yue🌙 21:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Composition (objects) (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)

The page is a mess, I'm not seeing a reason why it has notability outside of Mereology JMWt (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't appear to have an article dedicated to composite objects, or the composition of objects, as studied in Mereology. They do have one on mereology overall. Right now I'm thinking that that's a better way to organize the subject. Perhaps we should redirect this to Mereology? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the redirect suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Refeudalization (via WP:PROD on 23 March 2025)

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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.

Purge page cache

watch