Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental philosophers


 * 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 to delete at this time. The page has been improved during the course of the AfD and may be salvageable or the content may be appropriate for a merger somewhere. I don't see any consensus for a particular action below and believe that taking some time before a renomination may make the best solution more clear. Eluchil404 00:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

List of environmental philosophers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

List with no explanation as to what an enviornmental philosopher is (Goethe?), how a person would be on this list, nor why there would be so many redlinks. Corvus cornix 04:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorise. I sort of have an idea of what environmental philosophy is, because I learned about it in a university class once. Still, works much better as a category than a list.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly. This is naught but a list of names, and the environmental philosophy article is pretty weak also.  I understand why it might be thought to work better as a category.  It would be helpful if a couple words could be added to each name, explaining the significance of their work in environmental philosophy.  But there is no deadline, and the list might be improved.  - Smerdis of Tlön 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful for someone wanting to find out about environmental philosophers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.26.15 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

--I do not know how to contribute to this discussion (here?), but I was the originator of the page, and I have now a) added a definition--the same one that I am using in my forthcoming Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy (MacMillan, 2008). I have also sent a message out to our professional listserve, called ISEE, inviting additional modifications.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodeman (talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that you should start by writing an article on Environmental philosophy. Corvus cornix 18:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this list could be extremely useful, especially to college students taking their first or only course in environmental philosophy. As it is, though, it is inadequate. It would help to link to the page explaining environmental philosophy as soon as the list is introduced. That won't be enough, though, because the environmental philosophy article is poor, and doesn't even talk much about the work done by the listed philosophers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.232.30.80 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The previous comment was mine--Rob Loftis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Loftis (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason there are so many redlinks is that most of the people listed are college professors whose work has not been deemed important enough to get their own wikipedia page. This raises an important question: how important an environmental philosopher do you have to be to make this list? Will any philosophy Ph.D. who works on environmental issues count? I have a philosophy Ph.D., work in environmental ethics, and teach at a community college. Should I add my own name? --Rob Loftis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Loftis (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC) See if you can, briefly, describe what Dr. Bookchin or Dr. Callicot have contributed to philosophy, if you want this to be more than a grocery list. It's a worthy topic. (by the way, the "~" sign in the upper left corner of your keyboard is how you sign your comment... type " ~ " four times Mandsford 22:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:BIO and WP:PROF. There should only be articles about people who meet Wikipedia's notability standards.  And if they don't there shouldn't be a redlink for them.  But my biggest objection is that there is no explanation as to what an environmental philosopher is, and what makes them notable enough for this list.  What are your criteria for this list?  Corvus cornix 18:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Frodeman appears to be working on improving the page, and I think he/she should be given the chance to do so. I agree that you should work on improving the article environmental philosophy, and put more content into your list.  If you're new to this AfD is the fastest way to learn the do's and don'ts of Wikipedia.  Lists of names, by themselves, are frowned upon; the phrase "indiscriminate information" is used to describe something that is no more than a group of things that are asserted to have something in common.  If we simply want links to click upon to find out more, we group them in categories.


 * Delete. A list of names doesn't make for a true encyclopedia article. I think the content of this article should go into environmental philosophy. It certainly seems that environmental philosophy needs some more content, so deleting this article while moving its content to environmental philosophy would be a double-improvement for Wikipedia. Naturally, the information in the list would have to be properly referenced even after the move.-- Mumia-w-18 16:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the environmental philosophy page should be collapsed into the environmental ethics page. Robert Frodeman


 * 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.