Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge


 * 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. Editors are welcome to consider merging outside of the AfD process. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article overlaps with its source, The Analytical Language of John Wilkins. There is no reason why it warrants its own page, per WP:NAF.BonkHindrance (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. This subject appears to be well-sourced. If you think it should be merged with the other article, I'd suggest a talk page merge discussion is more appropriate than AFD. As it stands, I don't think it should be deleted. — Hunter Kahn 17:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seriously, paste it to the Google search window and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to The Analytical Language of John Wilkins. Neither article is particularly long, the two topics are intertwined, and I don't see as how this merits its own page. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this makes sense given the current state of both articles--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep because of high notability and cultural relevance of the bogus "classification". It is routinely included in curricula for courses on catalogue building for museum workers; the number of citations is enormous, including some first rate writers, such as Michel Foucault. Tiphareth (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep because Borges's trolling was so brilliant that it has tricked numerous scholars into thinking that the Celestial Emporium was a real literary work, and continues to do so — until those scholars consult Wikipedia, and discover that it is fictitious. Deleting this article, unlike deleting almost any other Wikipedia article, would be a substantial step backwards for human knowledge. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2020 (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.