Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I and Thou


 * 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. This is an WP:IAR non-admin closure, because the deletion tag on this article makes us look silly (if I may say so). It is the author's most famous work and there is extensive secondary literature which may be used to expand the article. There are even numerous podcast episodes discussing it. Notability is not at issue here, and AfD is not a cleanup process. Outriggr (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I and Thou

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is incomprehensible and is not based on reliable sources. $$\texttt{adamant}$$(talk/contribs) 23:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 23:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep but might be happy to consider draftify. First port of call for this one was German Wikipedia, which has this article with the better title IMHO. That makes the case that this is one of Buber's best known and most important writings, and it appears to provide some additional sources, although in fact it is just one more, and that mostly about Buber, not the book. Undeterred I then looked on Google scholar and found plenty. The first link is to the book itself, with a preface calling it a classic. Ok, well that is marketing hyper perhaps, but then the second link is indisputably good., because it is a paper by someone else revisiting the book, which demonstrates its notability. The third ref is also good being a book that discusses Buber's, and so it goes on for page after page.. Over 22,000 hits and a lot of them for this book. Then I tried the search on Ich und Du, and found a further 17,600 hits, again very many of them being for this book. It looks notable. Also the description is not incomprehensible although it could do with work. So... the subject is notable and the page should exist. The only question is whether the page is good enough as it stands. Despite the existence of many sources, the article writer has put none in. Also the lead does not really tell us anything - not even why the book is notable, and the description clearly lacks clarity. It has been tagged for a long time and no one has improved it. Draftify is therefore definitely worth considering, although I weakly favour keep. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is not particularly easy to understand, nor is it well-sourced. But the underlying topic is a clearly notable book. There are entire books about the philosophy described in Martin Buber's I and Thou. See Martin Buber's Ontology: An Analysis of I and Thou by Robert E. Wood; Martin Buber's I and Thou: Practicing Living Dialogue by Kenneth Paul Kramer with Mechthild Gawlick; Buber's Way to I and Thou by Rivka Horwitz. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't get past the nominator's statement that the article is incomprehensible. It is not, so the rationale offered is the thing that is incomprehensible here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs inline citations but there is notability. there are multiple research texts and books written about this book. From a cursory search:  And there is annother one cited in the article itself. These are very high quality sources. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  (click me!)    18:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. There is no deletion issue here. Outriggr (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - required reading in thousands of critical thinking, philosophy, and religion courses in colleges and seminaries. AfD is not for clean-up. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2020 (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.