Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Nietzsche and free will


 * 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. Further discourse regarding the article can continue on its talk page. North America1000 03:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche and free will

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Identical to other recently deleted articles on Free Will, a synthesis of barely connected quotations Peter Damian (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep. The quotes are indeed on the topics of freedom of will and determinism. You have many pages on much less important subjects in Nietzsche's works and not only Nietzsche's. Piotrniz (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - notable concept within the Nietzsche universe. Search shows extensive academic study of the subject:, ,   —Мандичка YO 😜 07:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: Wikiquote has Nietzsche on free will. Furthermore, a discussion of the philosophy as a break out is virtually unsearchable except as a fork. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will cover this topic pretty well without Wikipedia editors, and there are literally dozens of amateurs with opinions on the subject. A true synthesis isn't going to be particularly helpful, in other words, and this one isn't an impartial synthesis. I'm sorry, but stating that Nietzsche's praise of Schoppanauer hasn't been properly understood is NPOV? It's the predication of what follows, after all. Stating that all of Nietzsche on free will is to be understood in the context of the moral philosophy is an impartial point of view? None of this is the writer's opinion? (Oh, and I pretty much loathe that crazed Darwinist Nietzsche, but I've read his books.) Who is helped by this article? Who is served by it? Hithladaeus (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Amateur sources should obviously not be cited. Wikipedia is an all-encompassing encyclopedia. If a subject is suitable for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it's a good bet it meets GNG. Who is helped and who is served is not relevant to AfD. —Мандичка YO 😜 16:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cui bono is always relevant. If I must be blunt, I will: it serves the pleasure of the author, and not the curiosity of any reader, to have an article like this. Therefore, if you believe that Wikipedia is here for people to write on, you'll feel one way; if you believe Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia -- designed to serve readers and answer questions -- you'll feel another way, about these essays. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, I added secondary sources not from "dozens of amateurs with opinions on the subject" but from professors (e.g. Robert C. Solomon, B. Leiter). It would be nice to think about improving the article instead of hiding rather uncontroversial truth on its topic. 77.252.107.58 (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal comment: Perhaps, but I'm very pointed in not helping. I despise Nietzsche and believe that he should never have been rehabilitated. When I was first going to college, my professors wouldn't even mention his work, as they had gone to war to fight against one group inspired by his views. The 1970's doctoral generation and the Randians may have gotten enthusiastic about metaphysical nihilism, but that doesn't mean that Nietzsche actually presents a line of influence in European and American anti-rationalism. Should we have "Kierkegaard and Clericalism?" Should we have "Heidegger and Beauty?" Should we have "Marx and Culture?" They could be discussed, and they're more integral to their philosophers than Nietzsche and free will. (As I said, I regard the article as existing for its authors rather than its readers.) I completely sympathize with anyone who laments the lack of vehicle for academic collaboration on topics in the humanities, but Wikipedia was never designed to fill that need. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Reads like an essay of original research. The topic may be encyclopedic, but this article isn't. Nearly all of the references are to Nietzsche's own works. The few that aren't appear to be on the topic of free will, not analyses of Nietzsche's view of free will. The other option is WP:TNT, removing all of the first-party content. LaMona (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added references to scholarly secondary sources, so that the article is no longer based just on Nietzsche's own quotes. Could you please rethink your decision, because it is about lack of topic, not just about the quality of this article (this can always be improved). I can try to bring still more secondary sources. 77.252.107.58 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not just a question of the sources -- the article is an essay on Nietzsche's philosophy, not an encyclopedic presentation. What it would need would be counter arguments, pros and cons, and to be about the reception of his ideas. However, that is amply covered in the article on Nietzsche. The entire section on Schopenhauer is evidence of a kind of writing that is not appropriate for WP. Look for example in the category Philosophy of mind and note that none of the other articles are about an individual philosopher. That should be a clue as to the kind of writing that is expected. LaMona (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete it strung together quotes, an under graduate essay not an encyclopedia entry Snowded  TALK 06:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The vote was apparently modified by the voter so please do not count here as one more for deletion. Zaratustra (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite? Peter Damian (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge selectively to Will (philosophy) which has a section on Nietzsche ripe for expansion. Some content could also be added to free will, which is already kind of bulging at the seams, but nonetheless seems like a reasonable fit. There's no doubt people talk about Nietzsche and "free will", but people talk about Nietzsche and all sorts of things -- "will" being prominent among them. That makes me think Will (philosophy) isn't just an appropriate target, but something desperate for more Nietzsche (something I don't get to say enough). In other words, the key problem is that "free will", unlike, say, will to power, isn't as fundamental of a Nietzschean concept, so makes for a hard sell as a stand-alone article. Will (philosophy) on the other hand, makes sense for some of this work. (As an aside, the title of this article is part of what makes it seem like an essay; more appropriate, I think, would have been Free will (Nietzsche).) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Invalidity of the "free will" slogan is one of his fundamental concepts, though a "negative" one and not fully original. More positive concepts are e.g. will to power, overman, eternal return, but when you say that you don't need to understand fatalism in order to read Nietzsche then this is misleading. In nearly all Nietzsche's works you will find argumentation for fatalism or against free will. Even the title of his first book ("Birth of tragedy") is somehow linked to fatalism (just the title, leave alone the Dionysian/Apollinian; compare: tragic conflict). He even wrote a separate article or book on that topic ("Free will and fate"), a very early sample of his thought; and also his last book "Der Fall Wagner" is a word-play on Schopenhauer's admission of inborn character (der Fall = "case" but also "chance"). In light of so many written references I'd suggest it was very important, Fundamental, there are also many articles in the Internet, from scholars too, explaining his attitude. But see: if the debate is between "important" and "very important, fundamental" ("non-important" would be a lie, as explained above) then why take the whole article away from Wikipedia?! It is like hiding knowledge. Later not fully "enlightened" people (e.g. Chesterton, perhaps some scholars) propagate before the mob simplistic views that he was a determinist and this "arbitrary" belief is for him a proof against religion. 31.61.128.244 (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article contents should be in the Wikiquote project. --92slim (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge selectively Modifying my original site a little.  I'd agree that some of the material could be salvaged into another article.   Rewriting this one is questionable per comments from Rhododendrites Snowded  TALK 07:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is an article on Nietzsche's views such as the other ones which exist, e.g. Master/slave morality, Overman, Tschandala. In spite of what LaMona said such article can be encyclopedical, so Keep and Rewrite is the sharpest verdict which could be justified; quite another problem is how to write it, but in my opinion the article is very well written. It does not need "counterarguments," pros or cons, because it is just knowledge about an aspect of philosophy which is – as a standalone subject – so abstract and can be followed by so different philosophies (e.g. Thomism, Schopenhauer's, Nietzsche's) that demonstrating great distance and pretending there is a substantive or axiological discussion is superfluous (I don't know any such discussion, you can always extend the article). Zaratustra (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * An account created solely to vote here? Please confirm if you have edited under another ID or as an IP.  Snowded  TALK 10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No. See older traces here: http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedysta:Zaratustra&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaratustra (talk • contribs) 11:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, you also have such articles concerning Nietzsche as: Anarchism and Nietzsche, Works about Nietzsche, Nietzsche's relationship with Max Stirner, Nietzsche's views on women. It seems like a systemic approach of creating descriptive articles (about certain aspects) which would not normally appear in a printed encyclopedia book. This article should rather be linked exactly there, in Related articles, than in Concepts, within the Friedrich Nietzsche box on the main article. Do you perhaps want to discuss and challenge this whole approach? Zaratustra (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If a section developed in the primary article then its fine to spin off one on that aspect. Creating articles like these end up with multiple coat racks  Snowded  TALK 14:07, 14 June 2015 (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.