Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good will (philosophy)


 * 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 delete. Two major problems: The first paragraph is completely synthesis, and the second half of the article defined where "good will" was used, rather than defining it. Sr13 04:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good will (philosophy)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has the feel of original research. The creator of this article previously created good sense as a POV fork of common sense (see Articles for deletion/Good sense), and this article looks like an attempt to do the same thing: note the sentence in the intro "This is referred to as good sense (practical judgement) or just plain common sense." Any valid philosophical content is likely to be better covered in other articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe the person nominating this for deletion missed the main point of the article: Good Will is based on the concept of the Golden Rule.--Doug talk 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. While a couple of concepts are sourced the assimilation of this material to support the article is strained and slanted. It fails WP:NPOV and contains conclusory assertions that appear to be based on WP:OR. --Evb-wiki 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A good way to show Good Will is to give generous credit to other people and not to take much credit on a project yourself, even if you did most of the work. This will retain their Good Will and get them to back you on your next project. Good will is being lavish in distributing recognition to other people, especially those that helped you considerably. - since when did WP become the place to go to for such advice? The whole page is WP:OR. There was also a line Good Will is to always assume good faith on the part of the other person's intentions. Since when did WP guidelines start appearing in articles? Out and out delete xC | ☎  04:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Dilawar (t) 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article has been completely reworked.--Doug talk 12:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR, and rather confused OR at that. Deor 13:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator. The article has been reworked somewhat, but it's still WP:OR. Much of the cited material doesn't even mention the concept of good will, and the article synthesizes its sources to come to an original definition of good will. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment from the original author of the article. This then makes for a good basis for the article that other editors can now expand upon and make improvemnents. Almost every line has a citation reference source, but of course there is room for improvements. This then is an opportunity for other Wikipedians to input, since now it has an excellent start.--Doug talk 19:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A novel synthesis of material obtained by googling "good will". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:NOR  Buck  ets  ofg  12:05, 22 June 2007 (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.