Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Das Problem der Willensfreiheit in der neuesten deutschen Philosophie


 * 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. The apparently on-point sources identified by Cunard have not been discussed, and the OR issue has also barely been discussed.  Sandstein  08:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Das Problem der Willensfreiheit in der neuesten deutschen Philosophie

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Appears to fail WP:GNG, and mostly original research. Likely a student essay uploaded to Wikipedia. I would recommend merging with the page about the writer, but no article on Leo Müffelmann yet exists on English Wikipedia. – Ploni (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Student work from this class, pinging . Does seem to meet WP:BOOKCRIT per two reviews. Plus there is probably something in German but I don't have the time to search right now. —Kusma (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, barely meets criteria. —Kusma (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * All articles written by the students from my classes are linked from the project page of that class. In this class each of the students choose him/herself a topic to write about and selected a book from the Jesuit Collection of the Special Collections of the University Library. The university acquired over the years sets of old rare books, dating from the 16th century to the 20th century, which played an important role in history in the respective fields or are unique in its kind. The difficulty with these books is that many of the sources about them are only offline available. This is sometimes a challenge for the students, as they usually don't have the time to travel to libraries to look up more sources. All together I am confident that this subject is relevant to have an article in Wikipedia. Looking at the article, I am not so happy with the quality, looking at it by the standards we use in classes nowadays. If this would be the end product now, the student would fail the assignment. However, the suggestion that the article contains original research is incorrect, as well as that the article does not have an essayistic writing style and isn't an essay. Romaine (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment if the student can't carry out proper research on the subject, it shouldn't be uploaded to Wikipedia, it does not help if they then delete it for a lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete not a widely-cited book, all I can find are a French paper from 1902 and this English review, neither of which is substantive.. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This one is an extensive review in French: . —Kusma (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Given the sniffiness academia frequently reserves for WP as a source, I find it ironic this sup-par article should be academically sanctioned. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could create a tag for "This article was created for an academic course but likely received a grade of fail." Cielquiparle (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Notability (books) says: "A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."    </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Das Problem der Willensfreiheit in der neuesten deutschen Philosophie to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * 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.