Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major 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 of the debate was keep. Joyous! | Talk 20:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

List of major philosophers
WP:NOT says, "Wikipedia is NOT...Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." I don't see it assisting in any organization of articles. (Also, there are unresolvable disputes going on as to who is or isn't a "major philosopher." Article creates an excuse for unnecessary and useless conflict, distracting editors from working on real articles) There is already a Category:Philosophers, so what's the point? RJII 03:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete RJII 02:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep fi99ig 03:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC) I'm a bit confused -- there seem to be tons of lists on wikipedia, and even lists of lists Lists_of_articles_by_category. I find it hard to believe we are supposed to delete all of these.  There is even a guideline for standalone lists like the one in question -- Lists (stand-alone lists).  Perhaps someone with more background in Wikipedia policy could explain how this squares with the link RJII mentions above. fi99ig 03:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, many, if not most (or even damn near all) lists on Wikipedia go back to the days when a) the Category system hadn't been implemented in the software, so lists were the only way to collect 'like things', and b) when there were few articles, so the lists of redlinks were a good way to encourage article creation. Some number of lists (no idea what percent--haven't been editing on EN much the past, um, year, nearly) have since been deleted if it was determined that they had so few redlinks that they no longer served that purpose, in which case many people argue that they are redundant with the category, thus no longer needed. 24.18.215.132 03:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Bad faith delete. RJ couldn't get his favorite philosopher onto the list so he wants to destroy it all.  This isn't my wild guess, it's what he said in talk.  Al  03:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is false. Watch yourself...Al. First of all, Rand is not my favorite philosopher. I'm only vaguely familiar with Objectivism and am in the process of trying to learn about it. Secondly, I'm not deleting it because I can't get Rand in it. I explictly stated in Talk that I didn't really care if Rand was in it or not, because no one reads this article anyway. Contrary to your claim, at no time did I ever state that I was attempting to delete it because I couldn't get Rand in. I simply stated in Talk that its existence appears to be in opposition to Wikipedia policy . An additional reason I'm voting to delete it is it is distracting editors (including myself) from working on articles that people actually read. As evidence of my good faith and selfless devotion to policy, see here where I recently voted to delete a similar article even though I thought the article was useful:  (that's where I learned of the policy) I'm trying to keep Wikipedia content in compliance with policy. In the future, consult the record before you make claims about what I said. And, don't make things up. RJII 05:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't believe you. Your actions reveal you to be an orthodox, hardline Objecvtivist, regardless of any claims you make to the contrary.  You've tried everything to get Rand on this list, including hacking WP:OR to make it more favorable.  I'm not the least bit convinced.  Al  00:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Believe what you want. Why should I care what *you*, of all people, believe? I mean, really. RJII 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete We have to follow Wikipedia guidlines, whether we want to or not. Alienus has mad bad faith edits to this list. LaszloWalrus 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem, Laszlo, is that there seem to be competing guidelines on this point. There is also the fact that there are still lots of lists out there, so that serves as a kind of precedent for keeping this one. fi99ig 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have, in good faith, removed a minor philosopher who you worship. Al  00:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Are you aware of all the lists that exist on Wikipedia? This is actually pretty solid and it links a great deal of articles. I see no reason to delete. Yanksox 03:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Main actors in the debate have stopped argumenting. Consensus of the debate was that no objective definition of major philosopher can be constituted. My suggestion is to make a redirection to the philosophy portal. Intangible 03:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether or not we have arrived at an 'objective definition' (a standard that seems unreasonably high given that most regular English terms cannot be defined with complete objectivity), there is no consensus that 'major philosophers' is problematic. Plenty of us are fine with it.  I also think it's telling that everyone who has voted to 'delete' has been part of the unsuccessful campaign to produce a consensus to add Rand.  It looks a lot like sour grapes to me. fi99ig 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The standard is not high. All it needs is a wikipedia consensus that the philosophy term has been added to the philosophy category. Intangible 04:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? It's not a philosophical term!  'Akrasia' is a philosophical term.  'Apperception' is a philosophical term.  'Analytic' and 'synthetic' are philosophical terms.  But 'major philosopher' is just a regular english term.  I defy you to find a single work of philosophy where it is used in a technical sense. fi99ig 04:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot defy something I do not claim. I was refering to terms such as 'rationalism', 'empiricism' and 'nihilism', among many others, which all have been added to the philosophy category. Intangible 04:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Although I personally don't think that all of the lists on WP should be kept, they are, so this one should be kept too —M e ts501 talk 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This list is likely to be very useful, and it appears to contain those with a 'legitimate' (in the sense of not being stained by the the lazy school afternoon stamp), expounded and well-known philosophy. Links to more specific lists are also maintained, so I think this is something to hang onto. Jammo (SM247) 04:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and useful. There may be a category for this, but for the average user this page is infinitely more useful. "Major philosopher" issue can be worked out in talk; some philosophers are obviously notable, and I am sure that some criteria can be established for the more sketchy ones. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 05:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Irk the randroids. -- GWO
 * Keep for pretty much all of the above reasons. Ydam 12:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If this really was a List of Philosophers I would vote keep, but in practice it is a List of Major Philosophers - therefore inherently POV. David Sneek 14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whom you placed in here, it would be POV, a major philospher is harder to define that best selling records. Yanksox 14:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per David Sneek. The index at the top of complete lists of philosophers by date is useful, though. Espresso Addict 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you guys... serious? A "complete" list? Are you aware of how many philosophers there are? That's like listing every single baseball player in the world. ANYONE can be a baseball player or a philosopher. But the fact is, 99.9% of philosophers in the world don't matter. I have a philosophy on life, I am a philosopher (so to speak), but I don't matter. It is impossible to have a complete list, but it IS possible to have a list of major philosophers. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Yanksox. -- Shizane talkcontribs 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please this is a good and helpful list and could even be featured one day Yuckfoo 16:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, does nothing that categories don't already do better. Some things lists are good for; this ain't one of them. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 16:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep I don't know about a list as a FAC, but it is helpful. If the problem is with defining "major philosophers" remove that and keep the rest of the index. -MrFizyx 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep useful list. Yes, I admit I am pro-list and I vote. Carlossuarez46 17:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Adambiswanger1 17:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not a fan of lists, but this one seems more useful than many. I'd rather see it improved than deleted. Tom Harrison Talk 01:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete While this list is useful there is just too many problems with the definition of "Major Philosopher" that Alienus and Fi99ig are promoting, which by the way I think they have designed specifically to keep Ayn Rand off of the list due to the Anti-Objectivist bias that they both have. The Fading Light 18:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides violationg WP:AGF, I should point out that Fi99ig's standards also exclude my own favorite philosopher. I'm quite willing to admit that Daniel Dennett is a borderline case for the status of major philosopher and allow him to be omitted.  Then again, there are no articles on Dennett cults.  Al  18:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC) (signed belatedly)
 * Maybe someone should SIGN their messages, cus it looks like a sign of a coward to me... The Fading Light 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And maybe you should WP:AGF. Al  18:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you missed this part... "Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith". The Fading Light 19:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * People forget to sign every so often. It happens.  Failing to sign does not hide who wrote it, because the author's name is in the history.  Moreover, polite people just use the  template to mark such failures, rather than accusing others of cowardice.  Such accusations violate WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.  Thank you for understanding.  Al  20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep alphabetical lists help in organization and allow for redlinks which categories don't allow. - Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to say keep. – Jared Preston 22:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keepuseful even if cumbersome Joan-of-arc 03:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Very intensely STRONG KEEP - What's the point? Here's the point:  the list system and category systems are parallel (in purpose).  However, they each reflect a different style of construction (and maintenance), and therefore tap the different strengths of users - some users like working with lists (perhaps because those users are good at spewing lists right out of their heads, or maybe they like lists because the links are centralized for easy access), and others like tagging articles (the decentralized approach - you can't edit the links at the category).  Lists are here to stay, in spite of the category system's overlap/redundancy - this is a long-standing precedent.  If we get rid of this list for the reason of category redundancy, then we might as well put up all lists for deletion at the same time and save the trouble of deleting them one-by-one (there are thousands of them).  The list system isn't being replaced by the category system, as each system has its strengths and weaknesses.  Also, the list of lists included on this page alone makes it worthy of keeping.  As for the list of major philosophers, since there have been so many philosophers throughout the ages, it is helpful to have a list of the most influential ones.  Therefore, it is not a mere list of internal links, rather it is a valuable summary or condensation.  It may interest you to know that the list is slated for inclusion in the project Concise (see talk page), which would not be possible if this list had been deleted!  --Polar Deluge 12:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepI tend to like lists in general, esp. useful ones like this. I like that the list seems dedicated to only include real, notable philosophers.Giovanni33 03:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It excludes more "real, notable philosophers" (i.e. philosophers who have a wikipedia article) than it includes. David Sneek 11:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a question regarding procedure. It seems that a clear majority wish to keep the list (by my count, over two-to-one in favor of keeping it). Should this majority hold up, at what point (and how) do we settle this issue and remove the tag on the list page? fi99ig 21:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a clear consensus in favor of deletion, and that's clearly not going to happen. I think it's time to declare this closed and remove the scare tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienus (talk • contribs)

From the AfD instructions:

What to do after an AfD discussion has passed with a confirmation?

Nothing. If the discussion has been listed according to the rules above, at the end of the discussion period (usually about five days) an administrator will see the discussion listed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and erase it. Non administrator users do not have the technical capability to delete articles.

Five days has passed, and consensus is in favor of keeping. Therefore, I'm removing the tags. --Polar Deluge 05:54, 15 June 2006 (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.