Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death toll of the Enlightenment


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Death toll of the Enlightenment
The Enlightenment has not been without its critics, from Joseph de Maistre onwards, so a section on criticisms would not go amiss in Age of Enlightenment. This article, however, is an essay (and WP:SOAP applies to those), probably original research (in which case WP:NOR applies), and does not cite any sources beyond those for the indiscriminate rummelcruft list of deaths. Philosophical criticisms of enlightenment ideas are already mentioned where appropriate (PoMo etc). Was previously deleted by WP:PROD on unknown grounds. In my view it would be appropriate to delete it again (and allow the AFD to run so that future incarnations can be speedied under WP:CSD G4). Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, WP:NOR and WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 10:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:OR. Yomangani talk 10:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. The idea that we may inspire some future Pol Pot by making an encyclopedia is rather fetching, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. illspirit|talk 13:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Silly original research/sophomoric/actual sophomore's opinion. It's like having an article Death Toll due to Advance of Modern Technology and Related Population Growth Bwithh 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete due to severe point of view problems. --Metropolitan90 15:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No essays. ReverendG 21:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article asserts the notability of the subject. NPOV and citation issues should be dealt within the article and not through an AfD.  The AfD is premature. JASpencer 08:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see how it asserts notability. However, it is WP:OR and is therefore worthy of deletion. illspirit|talk 11:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Delete I could believe that this might be sourceable to some political philosopher but until it is, it looks too much like OR. I'm going to put an "unsourced" tag on it and, if it doesn't get sourced by the time this AFD debate is over, then it should be deleted. --Richard 17:28, 25 September 2006 (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.