Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedism


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article qualifies for deletions on several points. Firstly, there is only one ref, and that is to a quote; there is no reference to what "encyclopedism" is, or what its history or attributes are, and has had the re-improve tag since 2013; the article reads life a personal reflection or essay on the topic, rather than having an encyclopedic tone; the areas covered by the article are better handled at the articles history of encyclopedias and encyclopedias. Both of these cover what an encyclopedia is and what the history of the encyclopedia is far better and with better references, making this a case of Duplicate article.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note There is an open CFD nomination on the emponymous category (Category:Encyclopedism) located here. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This article makes broad claims with no sources. (The nominator gives way too much credit to the article for having 1 source when it's just a bare link without a page numbber to "Pliny's Natural History in 37 Books".) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. Most of the issues seem to be with the current condition of the article, which isn't cause for deletion. The article is in lousy shape, to be sure, but it's a distinct subject with several book-length treatments, edited collections, and countless papers on the subject. Per WP:NEXIST all that matters is that the sources exist -- they don't have to be cited in the article right now. For example:
 * Literature and Encyclopedism in Enlightenment Britain (Springer)
 * Encyclopedism from Pliny to Borges (University of Chicago Library)
 * Johann Heinrich Alsted: Encyclopedism, Millenarianism and the Second Reformation in Germany (Oxford)
 * The Business of Enlightenment: a publishing history of the Encyclopédie, 1775-1800 (Harvard)
 * Reading the World: Encyclopedic Writing in the Scholastic Age (UChicago)
 * Josselin de Jong, P. D., & Vermeulen, H. F. (1850). Cultural anthropology at Leiden University; From encyclopedism to structuralism'. Leiden Oriental Connections, 1940, 280-316.
 * Grafton, A. (1985). The world of the Polyhistors: Humanism and encyclopedism. Central European History, 18(01), 31-47.
 * Neurath, O. (1946). The orchestration of the sciences by the encyclopedism of logical empiricism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 6(4), 496-508.
 * Swigger, Ronald T. "Fictional Encyclopedism and the Cognitive Value of Literature." Comparative Literature Studies (1975): 351-366.
 * I'll stop there unless someone wants more. It's easy to say that encyclopedism and encyclopedias are closely related, of course, just like it's easy to say writing and books are, but these works aren't about the products of encyclopedism or about the encyclopedists -- they're about the process.
 * If it makes big claims that aren't sourced and you don't want to grab a source, tag the article or individual sentences. For the most egregious parts, remove them.
 * The current article doesn't offer a lot, which is why I'm not !voting strong keep, and I don't know how much of it I'd save if I were to start working on it (it's admittedly been on my to do list for quite a long time, sadly), but I also don't think anything is accomplished by deleting. It's impoverished; it's not damaging. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Your reply here shows more time and dedication than the article has seen in years. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between a really poor article and a poor topic. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep but tag copiously for all of its faults so it's clear that we know this isn't the article we would like. I agree with User:Rhododendrites' analysis, and it is a shame that within Wikipedia there would be such poor treatment of the very thing we are in the middle of doing here. LaMona (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not mind having an article on encyclpedism in principle, but it is a very, very lousy article and has been essentially unchanged for nearly five years. Unless the current one is completely rewritten and given WP:RS it should be deleted --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. North America1000 03:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: an important topic, but it needs work, particularly around Saint-Simon, Neurath (International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Bogdanov, and Hayek's critique of encyclopedism. Leutha (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – GNG pass:, , , , , , more.... North America1000 03:04, 8 April 2016 (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.