Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deleuze and Guattari


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleuze and Guattari

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not a real subject. We have articles about Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. We don't need this too. I'd say turn it into a redirect, but it's unclear whether it ought to redirect to the Deleuze article or the Guattari article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable as a long-running creative partnership of a sort almost unique in philosophy, the joint subject of multiple books, as important in continental philosophy as Lennon and McCartney or Simon and Garfunkel in music. The current article is stublike, but there is scope for coverage of their 20+ year partnership, their books, the distinctness of their joint work from that of either of their separate work, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that Deleuze and Guattari is a subject remotely comparable to Lennon and McCartney or Simon and Garfunkel. Philosophy is not music. It would be better to look at how Wikipedia covers philosophers. We have articles about Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, but no Marx and Engels article, even though academic writing often refers to the two jointly as "Marx and Engels." I also think your sources don't fully support your point - Brian Massumi's book is specifically about Capitalism and Schizophrenia, consisting of Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. It's not about "Deleuze and Guattari" as a subject, despite featuring the words "Deleuze and Guattari" in the subtitle. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Comment - it seems like part of the problem is that they aren't a recognizable "school" of philosophy. If they were known as the "Paris School" or some such, I have no doubt we'd all vote to keep.  But the lack of a name makes it seem very ad-hoc.  Perhaps a lesson about naming?BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. There isn't discussion in reliable sources of their collaboration qua collaboration.  This has nothing to do with philosophy and how it's covered in WP; if there were such sources, we should have an article.  I think that, contrary to comment above, it would actually be possible to write a Marx and Engels article, since the nature and qualities of their collaborations have been discussed as a discrete topic by reliable sources.  That doesn't seem to be the case here.  The article is essentially original research.  There's nothing worth merging anywhere either, and a redirect is a bad idea as the title is not a plausible search term.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, sorry for switcheroo. Actually Colapeninsula's second source, the intersecting lives one, convinces me that this subject is covered in reliable sources.  The first and third source not so much, but the second is enough for me.  The article as it stands is not about what it ought to be about, but that's not a matter for AFD.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - and Marx and Engel should have an article, too. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2012 (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.