Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1433 in 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

1433 in philosophy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:GNG failing list with 1 entry. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted due to request at DRV, with significant expansions to the article
 * Deletion would violate WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R because we could merge and redirect to Medieval philosophy. Alternatively we could apply WP:POKEMON and combine these year articles into century articles: the centuries in philosophy will be notable due to things like this. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge (all year articles in range) to 15th century philosophy. The per-year articles (all of them) are at the present too sparse to be of use.Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge per . SemiHypercube ✎ 18:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 18:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge Upmerge all stubby single-year articles into larger time units to create reasonable-length articles. -- Jayron 32 18:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I requested this AfD be reopened following Articles for deletion/1623 in philosophy being closed as keep. That was nominated with an identical rationale, but expanded prior to the AfD closing. SpinningSpark 18:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no reason to suppose that all years in the century cannot be similarly expanded, or expanded even further.  15th century in philosophy currently consists entirely of just the material in 1433 in philosophy and is thus WP:UNDUEly weighted for that year.  It does not make sense as it is. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The edits made by SpinningSpark suggest that this topic satisfies GNG and LISTN. If this page is not kept it should be merged to 15th century in philosophy (which is certainly notable due to entire books on the subject), like all the others, per ATD, PRESERVE and R, (or alternatively to 1430s in philosophy). 15th century in philosophy already includes material for 1467, 1499 and 1500, and can (obviously) be expanded further. I don't think UNDUE has any relevance to a recently created stub in the process of expansion per WP:IMPERFECT, since the addition of more diverse material is expected to occur naturally. James500 (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Redirect to 15th century in philosophy; this has already been merged there so no need to merge again. Excessive and WP:UNDUE coverage of largely trivial details about this one year (and a lack of similar coverage of other years) doesn't mean this article should be kept.  None of these references are about the year in philosophy; they're about individual events that happened to have been in this year.  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "but 1623 was kept" argument: first, I'm not convinced that was the right decision either. Second, years from before the invention of the printing press will have significantly less information available.  Third, that page at least has several books published there; we have one redlink for books in this year. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, its useful, of course the article could be redirected but I see no need to do so, trying to micromanage articles which will eventually fill isn't useful. Szzuk (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.