Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'101' as a teaching method for 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   delete. Keeper   76  16:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

&
I have had second thoughts on the piece, which as alrady expalined, occured to me after reding the exisiting page on the number '101'. The title is inappropriate and I think has caused most of the resentment, which bears resemblance to the 'second problem' with Wikipedia identified by Larry Sanger, which is that subject specialists are resented and attacked by non-specialists... .

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great#Behavioral.2Fcultural_problems too...

Anyway, I have now moved the page under a title that more accurately represents its intention: 'Teaching Methods in Philosophy'. In addition, I have rewritten it and I hope that any 'good faith' editors will remove their comments below which are now referring to somethign taht has been extensively 'improved'. Of course, the notice should be removed too.

Docmartincohen (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The Comments on the original version of the page are here
Article, created by User:Docmartincohen, talks heavily of Martin Cohen's work on the subject, making it pretty clearly self promotion. No assertion of notability, and reads heavily like original research. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A promotional piece singing the virtues of Dr. Martin Cohen's book, 101 Philosophy Problems. Created by a user identified as User:Docmartincohen.  Whether it's the author, or a fan of the author, this thinly disguised ad is contrary to the philosophy of Wikipedia.  Mandsford (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsure the artcile is coherent and referenced but also uncritical and apparently self-promoting. I was goinge to suggest Merge with the main article on the book 101 Philosophy Problems - but the article doesn't exist (apparently - maybe I mispelt it or something).Nick Connolly (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional essay. Gamaliel (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  08:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination: obvious conflict of interest, and no real claims of notability as a method. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I recognise a few of these names as the usual 'stalkers, but no matter... there are pages that are promotional eg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Truth_Matters

We could create a page for the book '101 Philosophy Problems', if the consensus here is that there should be one... that seems like promotional to me but... this page is about teaching methods in philosophy. I am a 'real life' figure involved, but I ma not making any personal gain from describing the issues. I have rejigged the text again to remove anything vaguely self-complimentary, but pages are not normally deleted, but improved. As I say, the reason this one is up for deletion is wiki-stalkers nothing really worth trying to rationalise with I guess.

How many of those voting 'delete' are knowledgable or interested in the topic? Obviously no one. Seems funny that they should be saying what should and should not be on the page. More than that, this is a clear violation fo the principles of the Wikipedia community - where admin tools are not used in place of attemtps to achieve consensus. And don't say lots of editors are in favour of deletion! The consensus we need is of people intersted in the best course for an article on teaching methods in philosophy, and in particuular the new approach (I helped research, implement etc) which breaks issues down in the way described here.

Docmartincohen (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No assertion of notability, no google news results, no google books, no google scholar, no google really either. I would say that the subject is not notable (as it fails notability guidelines). —Atyndall &#91;citation needed&#93; 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

the comments on the new version, 'Teaching Methods in Philosophy' are here
My previous comments stand - this is half original research, half promotion for Cohen's book. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil has followed my edit history and reversed my edits on completely seperate and unrelated issues: Wikistalking. I have posted this now on the Adminstrators noticeboard asking for intervention.

Docmartincohen (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, are you calling my response to you on an AfD I started further evidence of wikistalking? Because otherwise, this seems immaterial to my noting that I do not think your "new version" is any better. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No notability established, major COI. Seems like vanityspamicruft. DreamGuy (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Clear vanispamcuft ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability issues, COI. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Revised
May I remind the enthusiasitc deletionists of the relevant policy: improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page. No attemtps AT ALL have been made to improve this page...

I've re-edited again, although I should say, it begins to lose its purpose as a reference article... I'm not saying people are wrong to see an 'advert' here, its an interesting one... Wikipolicy allows people to describe their own work - the editors here all assume it is an automatic COI. I'm not too bothered about the deletion either way, I'm just exploring what 'is' and 'is not' considered suitable here... I can always use the best bits of my edits on Wikipedia elsewhere so its not a problem.

Docmartincohen (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I don't have a problem with his recent version; and I suggest the title Philosophy education, as we have for many other subjects, see Education by subject. Merzul (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Still delete. This is original research. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Today alone, Docmartincohen has inserted references to his own Philosophical Tales book into the Philosophy entry and the Chinese Philosophy entry (twice!), and it appears here as well. This all seems like vanity spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themoabird (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to clean up this article a bit so that we can discuss the material itself rather than User:Docmartincohen. I obviously can't defend the quality of this entry, I know very little about the topic and the sources aren't exactly peer-reviewed journals on education; but maybe a low quality article as a starting point for Philosophy education is be better than nothing, or maybe not... I personally stand by my "weak keep"; and other people are of course welcome to judge this themselves; but I encourage you to try to forget about this user's history and decide what to do with this GFDL-contributed material independently of that. Merzul (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep under the name of Philosophy education, as Phil suggests, and with the goal of making it an article of how philosophy is teached. This can still be hammered into shape until it becomes a good article., and I'm sure that there are sources about how to teach philosophy that can be used. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2008 (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.