Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustinian phenomenology


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Augustinian phenomenology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination. Originally proposed for deletion by User:Hairhorn ("Not notable. Term does not appear in one reference, the other is a book of dubious notability, see Edwin Mellen Press") ; this was removed by User:Universitybuff, who appears to have a stake in the article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article should not be removed because it is a legitimate new field in phenomenology, which is evidenced by WorldCat search, philosopher's Index, etc., and it is libelous and slander to state that the Edwin Mellen Press is a vanity publisher, especially since it exclusively publishes scholarly works without stipend and 9,516of their books appear in thousands of university libraries around the world. . There appears to be a bias against religion and religious philosophy among some of the contributors. Universitybuff (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Edwin Mellen Press article, I think that it is written without bias. The article simply states that the press has been described as a vanity press. It isn't endorsing or discrediting that position at all. However, it would be biased to leave this information out, and Wikipedia is not censored. Very respectfully, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone in academia (or at least in the liberal arts) knows that Edwin Mellen's books are hit or miss. Some books are quite good, some are tripe. From personal observation, it seems that when you need to get tenure and need to get a book out quickly, Mellen is the place to go. Their reputation is, as a consequence, a very mixed bag: I've cited Mellen publications and I have one or two that I'll take to the bank, but not all of them are like that. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I strongly contest the deletion of this article since the term "Augustinian phenomenology" is, in fact, 1) used by several philosophers, and especially Joseph O'Leary and Craig J. N. de Paulo; and 2)despite the "bad press" of the Edwin Mellen Press, this is a very reputable academic publisher. The term Augustinian phenomenology does appear in several search engines. I agree that there appears to be some anti-religious sentiment motivating this speedy deletion; and such bias and philosophical discrimination violates the policies of Wikipedia. Drmies and Hairhorn on several pages appear together, which seems to be an unfair strategy to get pages removed that do not fit into someone's ideology. Augustinestudent (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Augustinestudent (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Pot, kettle is on the other line. To summarize: Buff has edited thirteen times on seven articles, Augustine has edited 267 times on maybe a dozen articles. You have this AfD, and the article relating to it, the Collegium Augustinianum, and the biography of Craig de Paolo in common. So, who's colluding here? (Hairhorn and I have a bunch of articles and talk pages in common as well--582, to be precise. But we've racked up, between the two of us, over 160,000 edits.) Drmies (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, appears to be an attempt at promoting a non-notable neologism, presumably in an attempt at self-promotion. Google scholar searches point largely to a single author using this term, himself of borderline notability at best. I'd be happy to change my mind if better refs turn up, even the newer ones added since the PROD nom are not great. For example the claim that the term appears in Ricoeur's Memory, History and Forgetting: try searching the book for yourself and you'll see that the results are less than impressive. Hairhorn (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm going with delete. Searching Google books for "Augustinian phenomenology" (even excluding "paulo") delivers a number of valid hits, though many of them are e-Study Guides that amount to nothing. Some of those books, however, talk about the term in quotes. Moreover, JSTOR has next to nothing to offer: two articles, and Daniel Beaumont, "The Modality of Narrative A Critique of Some Recent Views of Narrative in Theology" (Journal of the American Academy of Religion (1997) 65:1, 125-139) mentions the term in "an Augustinian phenomenology of time", which does not establish that there is a well-defined term or concept for our article. (The other article uses the term only to cite Paulo.) There is of course plenty to be said about Augustine's conception of phenomenology, but the article is explicitly about an Augustinian take on phenomenology. This discusses Augustine's phenomenology, and that's not what the article is about. Same with this. Edith Stein's Finite and Eternal Being proposes "a kind of Augustinian phenomenology", but that's "a kind", and it's not the topic of the article, from what I can tell. So, Google Books hits can be deceptive, and I see nothing yet that warrants an article called "Augustinian phenomenology" according to the definition given in the current article. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment. In response to the other editors, I just concluded a google search of the term Augustinian phenomenology and added references to the page, which apparently do not satisfy some of the editors. I also did a WorldCat search, and the term appears at least 218x and the dePaulo's work on the topic appears in 385 libraries worldwide. Frankly, I do not understand the difficulty with this term. Augustinestudent (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You need only !vote once. Stalwart 111  23:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought I had addressed that above. In a nutshell, "Augustinian phenomenology" is a term that can cover a lot of different things, including, most importantly, Augustine's phenomenology. This article is about a modern concept; it's not about Augustine's phenomenology. I thought I had shown, sufficiently, that a number of hits discuss Augustine's phenomenology using the term "Augustinian phenomenology". That problem (if a problem it is) works on WorldCat the same way it does in Google: WorldCat makes no distinction, in its hits on "Augustinian phenomenology", between "modern inflection of phenomenology using Augustinian existential theology" and "theology according to Augustine". If you can't see or understand that difference, you may want to retake some class or other before signing up for advanced phenomenology, theology, or existentialism. In addition (this needs no argument for the experienced Wikipedia editors) search results by themselves mean very little, since it's a kind of primary research To make matters worse, you have quite deceitfully made this edit, adding a mention of the term that I signaled above, and which I signaled explicitly as a use of the term that does NOT fit in with the definition outlined in the Wikipedia article under discussion. It is a kind of incomplete citation, and since I explained why it couldn't be used to support your reading of it (and I can be more explicit: it discusses Augustine's phenomenology of time, not Paulo's or some "relatively new" interpretation), it qualifies as an act of intellectual dishonesty, something that I wouldn't tolerate in my classroom, and something Augustine--I am quite sure--wouldn't approve of either. If anything, the man was honest. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And please be more careful in your citation. You misspelled the title of the Schrijvers article, and you (gasp!) misspelled Pascal's first name. You clearly didn't attend Pascal College, where you would have learned better. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not dishonesty, but careless latching on to Google hits (to put it mildly): Religious Existentialism: Blais Pascal and Augustine of Hippo (you added it in this edit) is a collection of Wikipedia articles. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One more revert, with the help of Google Books. Not our definition. I wash my hands of this affair and this editor: in a classroom situation, this would amount to academic dishonesty and I would inform the provost and the registrar, and assign a failing grade. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - there's an admission this is new, probably WP:TOOSOON. We need significant coverage, not passing mentions (even many passing mentions). Wouldn't object to incubation until significant coverage exists. Stalwart 111  23:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * CommentAs my wiki names states,I am a graduate student in religious history and lover of Augustine, and I am not an expert on Wikipedia. I am simply interested in creating and editing all things related to Augustine, Augustine Scholars, etc. I do no understand why this simply philosophy page is being attacked and why my other pages are also being attacked. Novice here, I do not know all of the protocol, and I need some help! Augustinestudent (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this personally. In order for Wikipedia to have an article about a subject, it must be significant enough to be worthy of notice (what we call notability). More importantly, for Wikipedia to have an article about a subject, there needs to be a significant amount of coverage by secondary reliable sources so that we have a way to verify everything that is written in the article. If that significant coverage is nonexistent, then the subject is simply not notable for Wikipedia. Of course, that can change if more sources become available in the future, and notability is not temporary. It could simply be too soon for a subject to be considered at this time. I hope this helped. Kind regards, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per arguments above. It's frustrating to see Drmies' highly academic objections being answered merely with "I do no understand why this simply philosophy page is being attacked", from a graduate student in religious history. Augustinestudent, it would be better if you made an attempt to engage with for instance Drmies' arguments about the distinction between on the one hand the modern concept of Augustinian phenomenology, and on the other Augustine's own phenomenology. That's an academic distinction, the kind that grad students such as yourself typically deal in. It doesn't depend on or refer to any Wikipedia "protocol".  Bishonen &#124; talk 04:23, 13 June 2013 (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.