Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early 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   keep. Additionally, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Early phenomenology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I really do not see the basis for this being a separate article.  DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Weak keep or merge (see comment below) - Early phenomenology is not distinct from the rest of phenomenology; it's the foundation for the rest of phenomenology. Heidegger is hugely influential, of course, but it's difficult to talk about phenomenology proper without talking about Husserl, which is claimed here as part of "early phenomenology." If anything, the different directions it was taken later are what should be split off (as existential phenomenology is, despite not being a great example). Regardless, fails GNG as insufficient sources talk about it as a distinct subject. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  03:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - What would be needed to bring this article up to standard? Most of this information is not covered in the article on phenomenology (which itself is a bit of a mess, because it tries to cover too much material both at the historical and theoretical levels).  Also, literature on the subject of early phenomenology in English alone dates back to 1943, in Marvin Farber's book The Foundation of Phenomenology.--Rodney.k.b.parker (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)--Rodney.k.b.parker (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as "early" seems to be indiscriminate/made up time frame and not supported by the sources as a distinct period. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge - Given the state of the article as it stood when nominated for deletion, I can understand the reasons for doing so - the article was clearly transferred from AfC prematurely and, while containing references, effectively boiled down to a definition of what the article creator, User:Rodney.k.b.parker, understands by "early phenomenology" and an implicit assertion that it deserved its own article separate from phenomenology (philosophy). However, I would commend User:Rodney.k.b.parker for persevering with expanding and improving the article during this AfD period - some of this (such as the quotations from Husserl, which are unduly long in an article of this length) does show his inexperience as a Wikipedia editor, but he has the makings of a distinctly good one. A fair amount of the cited material he has now added is not in phenomenology (philosophy) and, even if the article topic is not deemed suitable for stand-alone treatment, should probably be included there rather than deleted. However, his comment, made above, that phenomenology (philosophy) is a bit of a mess is, I think, justified - the "historical overview" in that article is a list of rather disconnected facts and the rest of it moves almost randomly between historical and theoretical sections without giving a comprehensive overview of either aspect of the subject. In that respect, provided User:Rodney.k.b.parker expands the latter sections of this article into properly cited text rather than just lists of names, we actually have something that should work as part of either the historical section in a restructured phenomenology (philosophy) article or a split-out article on the history of phenomenology. Finally, I would remark that while I see relatively little justification from GBooks sources for the use of "early phenomenology" in the sense used in this article, the periodisation (as distinct from the title) does make sense - up to the 1930s, for instance, phenomenology and analytic philosophy were mutually interacting parts of the German philosophical scene in a way that they weren't anywhere after World War II. But, despite that, I am not sure what title to use whose notability for describing the article with its current limits is sufficiently demonstrable. PWilkinson (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable as there are papers such as Theories of Reference in Both Early Phenomenology and Early Analytic Philosophy and Early Phenomenology and the Origins of Analytic Philosophy. Andrew (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The entry describes a distinct phase in the development of phenomenology that requires an autonomous treatment. It is not just concerned with Husserl's (early) phenomenology, but with a central foundational phase in the phenomenological movement as a whole, both prior to as well as beyond Husserl's works. It is what Spiegelberg indicates as "The German Phase of the Movement", excluding Heidegger. This phase, under the label "early phenomenology", has received recognition in the scholarly community through an organization (NASEP), conferences, lecture courses, and as pointed out above, papers and journals. For philosophical topics, it makes more sense to look at a specialized database, such as PhilPapers. Furthermore, with respect to notability, the label "early phenomenology" is also in use in other languages relevant to this topic, see e.g. "frühe phänomenologie". The entry is already longer and more detailed than the corresponding parts in the general phenomenology entry. Give it some time to develop. Cat (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I changed my delete !vote to weak keep or merge. I think if I came across this article as it exists right now, I would say it's too soon to put it up for AfD. I'm still not completely sold that it needs to be its own article, but there's no doubt the material is notable and the content is worth having on Wikipedia somewhere. Based on the trajectory it's been on thanks to 's continued work, I'd want to see where it was going. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  07:46, 27 June 2014 (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.