Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eupraxsophy


 * 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   Redirect to Paul Kurtz Cheers.  I 'mperator 15:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Eupraxsophy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per WP:NEO (it's a neologism) and WP:DICTDEF (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). The term isn't in the Oxford Online Dictionary nor Merriam Webster Online, nor in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1999) nor The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1994). The only dictionary I could find it in is a non-scholarly publication: the Dictionary of Atheism, Skipticism, & Humanism (2006). Out of the 10,000 libraries covered in Worldcat, only 187 carry the dictionary the term is in. In the review of that dictionary in Reference & User Services Quarterly (used by librarians to select books for their collections), it stated "cannot be recommended as a scholarly reference work. A better alternative would be to rely on general dictionaries and encyclopedias of philosophy and theology or to use The Encyclopedia of Unbelief." Well, it's not in the The Encyclopedia of Unbelief (1985), nor in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (MacMillan, 2006), nor the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1998). I also couldn't find any articles on eupraxsophy as a topic in any major publication. In the New York Times for instance, the term is mentioned in articles about the guy who coined the term, Paul Kurtz. But WP:NEO states: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term&mdash;not books and papers that use the term." The Transhumanist 22:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Paul Kurtz. Paul Kurtz did come up with it in 2004 (reference) and the article as presently written is a hopeless dicdef, so the nominator's comments are correct, particularly where he says "we must cite reliable sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." But having said that, the AfD process is for determining whether this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia.  And it shouldn't, because a substantial source does exist (here), so it may be possible to write a full-length article about the subject.  Of course, until someone does, eupraxsophy should redirect to Paul Kurtz, since it's a plausible search term.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: according to Dictionary of Atheism, Skipticism, & Humanism he came up with it in the late '80s. Didn't say where.  The Transhumanist  23:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: If the book was popular enough, that would establish notability. Worldcat shows that out of the 10,000 libraries it covers, 533 libraries carry it.  Is that notable enough to qualify the topic for an article in Wikipedia?  The Transhumanist  23:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think such a number (certainly for an academic publication) makes the publication pass WP:N--but I am not sure if the same counts for the topic of the publication, in addition to the COI issue. If you write that book about the term defined in Kurtz's book, and it ends up in 533 libraries, well, that's different perhaps. But maybe I'm splitting hairs. DGG, MGM, or Uncle G (it's a G thang) would be able to state chapter and verse of WP policy and give us an answer in a second. Let's stick with your direct redirect, for now. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect in agreement with S Marshall. Kudos to Transhumanist and Marshall for their hard work on this AfD--and both of you have gone a long way toward defeating the AfD with y'alls search work and reference-adding; pity those references are all by the phrase coiner himself. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect would be fine with me. The search term should lead the reader to where the term is covered, and it can legitimately be covered in the article on its coiner, even if the term is non-notable (see Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content).  There's now a section in Paul Kurtz called "Eupraxsophy", so a redirect can be made to lead straight to it.  The Transhumanist  00:06, 20 April 2009 (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.