Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-philosophy (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was keep and expand. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-philosophy

Orphaned article, same couple of sentences years later and still no corresponding French article. Nothing links here either. It seems like a non-notable-philosophy. 2nd vote (see Talk:Non-philosophy) - Rudykog 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to François Laruelle and add some biographical detail; the author appears notable (see Google Scholar) but there's no evidence that the theory is. Ziggurat 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Changed vote to delete without prejudice. There's a topic, but this is a copyvio (well spotted, Angus!), so the best course of action would be to remove it and allow for an untainted article to be written (should someone choose to later). Ziggurat 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Ezeu 00:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Very Weak Keep - Googling [1], it appears that there are plenty of academic resources from which to create an article. The topic is unquestionably of suitable academic value. HOWEVER - take a look at the history. Nobody has tried to modify the article in two years. Having a stub that absolutely nobody is interested in expanding isn't helpful. If someone wanted to take this on, it would be an obvious keep, but as it is, it isn't doing anyone any good. BigDT 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a non-starter and not a valid topic. Article about Laruelle's essay. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate with actual content if there's interest. Seems fitting that a non-philosophy should have a non-article. Opabinia regalis 02:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per BigDT. The subject of the article is notable, but considering the article hasn't been changed since it was originally created two years ago, there's a good chance it never will be. -- Kicking222 02:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand... a veeeeeeeeery rare going-against-the-grain keep and vote from me. Appears to be notable philosophical position Bwithh 02:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand I learned something interesting from the short stub there. Learning is good. --SeizureDog 03:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above Computerjoe's talk 07:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This has the potential to be an interesting article, and the subject seems notable enough. The article's just been neglected over time. --Coredesat 09:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment unless my eyes deceive me, the current content appears to come from this page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - largely unknown in the Anglophone academy - two years with no movement tells me it's largely unknown everywhere. We can't document things that cannot be verifyed and expanded. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Copyvio as pointed out by Angus (nice work there A)... text was lifted from the link he posted above. I've tagged listed this as a copyright violation and it should be treated as such. As a subject, this might be worthy of an article if anyone cares to research and write a new article with verifiable sources...--Isotope23 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite as it is a Copyvio as pointed out by Isotope23 and Angus. Article is still valid but it may be hard-pressed to find more material and external sources for this. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per Coredesat. --209.89.123.231 18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand per Coredesat. --Ephilei 03:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand I rewrote a stub, but it lacks context and I could only explain n-P by quoting the originator because it's just word salad to me in English and French; needs expert attention. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 9 June 2006 (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.