Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th-century philosophy

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. W.marsh 03:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 20th-century philosophy

20th-century philosophy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This page has no encyclopedic content. Any useful information it has can be found in pages with better citations. KSchutte 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Which pages?

As mentioned on the talk page, List of philosophers born in the twentieth century and its companions are a better referenced list of names. As for what little other content is to be found here, I think even philosophy does a better job than this glib rhetoric. KSchutte 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. The author seems to be onto something, but it's unreferenced; the article is mostly lists, and the beginning reads like an OR or copyvio essay, and it smells like it may be a POV-fork. However, if the author can provide citations (and show that he's not plagiarizing the initial essay), and clean up the lists somewhat, this might be a pretty worthwhile article. Argyriou (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete or a Strong Must be Rewritten - There is already a List of philosophers born in the twentieth century (and those other lists aren't worth having). The article should be deleted or, if it is to be rewritten the rewrite should go like this:

- all the lists should be stripped out (the article could have 'also see' links to appropriate lists),

- the article should be re-named as "Summary of 20th-century Philosophy's History" (or something like that) and be written with appropriate references.

There is a story worth telling if done that way. And it could grow into a series of 'History of Philosophy' articles (or do they already exist?) Steve 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. At least as article history is concerned, this would appear to be legit: this has a history of edits going back to 2004, and moreover the earliest text is obviously the ancestor of what is now here. A lot of its history seems to revolve around edit warring about whether Ayn Rand is enough of a philosopher to stand in this company, though, but there's enough there to convince me that this is not a POV fork. It certainly isn't very good, and should be sent to cleanup, but that's not grounds to delete this. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but revise. The intro needs to be rewritten to make it more wiki-styled, and the article as a whole could use more of a general-audience-appropriate overview of the topic, but the topic itself definitely seems notable enough to be worth keeping. WillHarper 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but needs cleanup and expansion. The only equivalent we have seems to be History of philosophy#Contemporary philosophy, which is just a paragraph, and this is already pointed to as a subarticle of History of Western philosophy#19th to mid-20th century philosophy. I consider this an essential article so it's a pity the state that it's in, but that calls for improvement, not deletion. Modern philosophy, according to that article, should cover the Renaissance to the 18th century, but redirects to the paltry 19th-century philosophy. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep: yes, the article needs work, but the fact my university offers classes in both "contemporary political philosophy" and "modern philosophy" tells me that there are ample sources for contemporary philosophy as a distinct field and article. Wintermut3 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep it seems very readable, and the list is appropriate. The page certainly seems to be actively maintained. DGG 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete to make this article passably correct and unbiased will necessarily make it into the equivalent of two or three volumes. It will either have to be too brief to be true, or too long to be useful. The field is just too large for century-based categories after the 18th century. it takes a few hundred years to filter out the best from the worse to get down to encyclopedic value in the age of a century. I mean you couldn't even do an encyclopedic entry of 20th century ango-american philosophy, not to mention the rise of philosophy in australia, etc. etc. and french and german philosophy? it is a delete as it can never be much more than the list and the list is best done elsewhere. --Buridan 01:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep on the condition that it becomes the Project's collaboration for February. - Sam 04:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. Topic is the classic sort of topic any encyclopedia should have. Article is definitely poorly written, but content problems can be addressed through improvement. Expert help would be valuable. --Shirahadasha 19:15, 28 January 2007 (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.