Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living philosophers and academics of 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. Categories cover the same information adequately; the list is too difficult to maintain.Cúchullain t/ c 05:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. The inclusion criteria for this list are impossibly broad (extending far beyond the criteria at WP:BIO and WP:PROF), so it can never be remotely complete. It is defined as list of "Living philosophers and academics of philosophy (and others important in the history of philosophy)", which means that it could legitimately include (as an extreme example) someone who was once a part-time philosophy lecturer at an obscure non-university college. The inclusion of obscure and minor academics means that editors can legitimately add many entries which fit the list's definitions, but which will be difficult or impossible to verify or to check whether the people are still alive. KSchutte (the list's creator) has recently removed some of the less notable entries, but this does not resolve the fundamental problem of the list's purpose being too broadly defined (and the deleted entries apparently met the list's stated inclusion criteria). This article was deleted in May by a prod which was subsequently contested, leading to undeletion; however the resumed discussion at Talk:List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy does not persuade me that the fundamental problems arising from the over-wide inclusion criteria can be resolved. I can see the attraction of a list such as this, but a "list of living philosophers" woukd need to be defined more tightly to meet the criteria at WP:BIO and WP:PROF, and I would still have concerns about whether the "living" aspect could be adequately maintained. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete The list is not well maintained: as I pointed out on the talk page, a very quick scan found that it included one figure who has been dead since 1994; the criteria for inclusion are vague at best, so that the list includes a Scottish politician. And moreover, I'm not entirely sure what the point of such a list would be even if it were accurate and well-defined. Should we then have lists of living anthropologists, historians, lawyers, surgeons, and every other professional category? I think not. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Impossible to maintain. - Mgm|(talk) 11:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of philosophers born in the 20th century, as the distinction between the living and dead is an unnecessary complication, and impose some reasonable inclusion criteria (at least sufficient to verify that everyone on the list would meet WP:N). -- Visviva 12:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with y'all. Use categories, and list by century of birth as is being done.  Trying to maintain a list of living philosophers is more trouble than it's worth. Yechiel Man  14:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Visviva Bulldog123 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons I go into in more detail on the talk page. "Philosopher" is an almost impossible term to define and I'd lay money a lot of people on the list wouldn't consider themselves such; it's unmaintainably long; it sets a precedent for numerous other "lists of" by occupation; it's never going to be accurate enough to get any kind of WP:USEFUL (which I do sometimes think is a valid "keep" reason) exemption —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  19:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete A category seems equally good and easier to maintain.  But, I am not strongly opposed to the idea of this list.  If someone presents a compelling reason why the list would be better than a category, I would be happy to reconsider. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 10:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list is usually well-maintained.  That I've been away from wikipedia for a couple of months is what led this to be deleted once already.  The list is useful insofar as it is the natural extension of the other lists I've created: List of philosophers born in the centuries BC, List of philosophers born in the first through tenth centuries, List of philosophers born in the eleventh through fourteenth centuries, List of philosophers born in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, List of philosophers born in the seventeenth century, List of philosophers born in the eighteenth century, List of philosophers born in the nineteenth century, and List of philosophers born in the twentieth century.  While the title of the page might indicate otherwise, of course the list is not intended to (nor could it) include everyone who meets that condition.  The title was chosen as a diplomatic means to avoid debates over whether or not so-and-so is truly a philosopher (such debates abound on other philosophy pages, which suggests that the likelihood of pretenders remaining on the list for very long is significantly overstated--even when they do remain, I'm usually aware of them but not in a mood to engage in deletion debate).  Anyone who has thought of a better title would do well to suggest it rather than simply delete this useful list because one has a problem with the scope of its title.  Merging the two lists would be awkward, as having the lists between living and dead separate allows for more useful information to be presented on the page (life span dates for dead philosophers, affiliated institutions and research areas on the living philosophers page).  I don't object to a more stringent criteria being added to the page, but previous attempts to establish such a thing on other philosophy pages haven't gone well.  There are many distinct traditions in philosophy, and there are always individuals who argue that wikipedia coverage of their favored tradition is shallow. KSchutte 02:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kevin, can you say what you think is useful about this list that cannot be achieved by a category?   The only thing I see is that it can list affiliated institutions next to the name, where a category would require looking at the individual article.  I'm not sure why this is useful.  Can you say what you think the benefit is?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I think it is useful because it makes fairly obvious individuals who have Ayn Rand Syndrome (i.e., lots of people call them philosophers, but the people who call them philosophers aren't themselves philosophers. When you see "Affiliation Unknown" next to a name, or see that a person's study is in transhumanism, at least for you and me, it's a pretty simple way of avoiding that page.  Also, such names are more obvious to those who, unlike myself, do have the patience and vitriol for deletion debate. - KSchutte 02:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Ill-defined membership criteria, covering a mishmash of unrelated specialties. Nonetheless, it was fun to browse through.  One question, what does it matter whether they are living or not?  (Yes, it might indeed matter to them, but why is it worthy of an article?)  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One reason it might matter is because many of us are particularly concerned with contemporary philosophy, which is only contributed to by the living. Postmodern Beatnik 19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmnnn, as far as I'm concerned, Montaigne is more alive than half the people I know. :) -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 19:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No no, you find his opinions to be live options (as per William James). You certainly wouldn't find him to be very alive were you to attend a party with his remains. ;) Postmodern Beatnik 19:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * More seriously, I'm not sure that Richard Rorty's importance to contemporary philosophy is that much less important today than it was a week or so ago.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an awful lot to read into a list membership. Nothing about the shift seems to suggest a decrease in importance&mdash;except, of course, for those specifically interested in contemporary philosophy (to whom Rorty stopped being interesting the second he stopped writing). Postmodern Beatnik 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nothing above suggests that any putative problems with the list are insurmountable. The qualifications for inclusion can be tightened (a possibility BHG seems to just assume is a non-starter, a highly dubious contention to be sure).  As for maintaining the article, the brief hiatus of an article's main contributor is hardly a reason to delete it.  Indeed, it seems the logical step to take is to recruit other editors to help with the project. Postmodern Beatnik 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Huh? I didn't say that tightening the qualifications for inclusion was a non-starter, rather the opposite; but I did say that I didn't see any way of surmounting the problems with the "living" aspect. However, we are not debating a list with other inclusion criteria, we are debating this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - My apologies for misunderstanding you regarding tightening of qualifications. However, the argument that we are debating this list and not another one is a red herring.  Changing the list's inclusion criteria does not fundamentally change the identity of the list in any relevant way.  It would not necessarily change the title, for instance.  And even if it did, that was a possibility raised on the original talk page.  The core identity of the article remains through these superficial changes (see perdurantism or the ship of Theseus problem, for example). Postmodern Beatnik 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Arguable Delete - 'Delete', because I can't see any point to this list, and cannot imagine such a thing appearing in any other encyclopedia. But, 'arguable' because I may be missing something here. (I am not impressed by people making comments that suggest that part-time philosophers in lesser universities are not suitable for a 'living philosophers'page, but I am probably biased.) Anarchia 21:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply See WP:PROF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Visviva above - since the idea is not in itself a bad one, although BrownHairedGirl's point that it can never be completed as it stands is correct. Dast 23:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A POV trap, as with all such lists Banno 13:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't you be bringing this up elsewhere as a complaint about lists in general? So long as lists stay, I don't see what's wrong with this one. Postmodern Beatnik 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I should note that the reason for keeping the list of living and dead people separate--to show the affiliated institutions of the individuals in question--has been very effective at singling out (making visible) individuals whose qualifications are suspect.  Any merging of the list would eliminate that benefit. - KSchutte 02:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Request. In the event that this list is deleted, I kindly ask whoever closes the deletion debate to move the content to my userspace.  At least I find this page useful. - KSchutte 01:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, together with all persons' lists that are superlarge and impossible to maintain. -- Futurano 10:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless I get to be on it.--Mike18xx 06:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Make it a category, or create IndexPedia to store such non-encyclopedic lists. Until(1 == 2) 13:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See my response to Banno above. Postmodern Beatnik 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The scope of the list is not overly broad, as evident by its reasonable size. The list is maintainable and is maintained. Lists can coexist with categories. The living status of philosophers is relevant, and more specific inclusion criteria (notability as a philosopher) can be determined by consensus on the talk page. –Pomte 20:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Please! Per nom  G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 05:21, 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.