Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peterson–Žižek debate


 * 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. A debate about a debate - in which this discussions consensus is keep. The article has also been significantly updated since the nomination, so I encourage Bilorv to review the updated article. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Dus</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 02:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Peterson–Žižek debate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Debates are not typically something we consider notable on Wikipedia - e.g. we don't (as far as I can see) have any articles on specific Intelligence Squared debates or any similar kinds of things. Category:Debates reveals a few individual in-person debate events like Gadamer–Derrida debate or Cassirer–Heidegger debate, whose notability I'm not convinced of, but even accepting that, this is a different case. Unlike Derrida or Heidegger, Peterson and Žižek are not seminal scholars in their fields, merely popular figures (the philosophy equivalents of pop scientists, one could say). Peterson isn't even a professional political theorist or philosopher - instead his scholarly expertise is in psychology. The only thing that would convince me that this individual debate is notable would be an unusually large amount of media coverage but I don't believe that that's the case here, having looked at the references in the article and attempted to find additional sources (the best I could find was an article about memes, which is not any use). — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whilst wikipedia does not as a rule have articles on debates, this debate was strongly billed as the debate of our century. That it turned out to be a discussion of where the participants agreed rather than differed, and that both tended to the conclusion that mankind is heading towards apocalypse will no doubt result in much more discussion in RS and this article will provide a useful focus rather than disparate discussions in the protagonists' individual articles. Give the article some time. Poltair (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources for "strongly billed as"? I'm not disputing that the debate was interesting but "will no doubt result in [more sources]" is WP:CRYSTAL. It needs to be notable now to be kept. We can move it to draft space if it's potentially notable one day. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  01:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  01:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep There is in fact considerable reliable source coverage of this debate and its importance in reliable sources, including sources that are not in the article now (or about memes). These include the Economist, the FEE, Jacobin, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. It is therefore clear that GNG is met here, especially given discussion of this event's (potential) significance (e.g. "the Peterson-Zizek encounter could be the most important public debate since Chomsky and Foucault nearly half a century ago. Indeed, it would be the natural sequel to Chomsky/Foucault." ). IntoThinAir (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that The Economist source is already in the article. Thanks for the other sources though. They are useful, but I'd note that the Foundation for Economic Education is a libertarian think-tank (so I don't really trust its judgement on what is "the most important public debate") and the Jacobin is a Marxist magazine. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if a specific source is of this or that ideological perspectice if it is reliable.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the Economist was in the article, I have stricken it. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Jacobin isn't strictly Marxist. It's a democratic socialist magazine founded by a sometimes Marxist. Not to get into small differences but the distinction is worth making. MainlyTwelve (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as previous editors said, also another report is from Now Toronto. As well, it is notable that a European national televison like Hrvatska Radiotelevizija is going to broadcast the debate these days, as well Croatian mainstream media has extensive pre- and post-reports on it (post-reports Jutarnji list, Index.hr). Perhaps even other mainstream medias throught the world reported on the debate.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Unambiguously notable, even a cursory Google search reveals ongoing coverage from Russian, British, American, and Canadian outlets. There might not be a great deal of precedent for this sort of article, but that doesn't disqualify it from inclusion.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I created the article because of the extensive discussion online for a very long time since it was announced and during the event itself, such as in that "Peterson" and "Zizek" were the top two trending things on Twitter a few days ago. The debate received more media attention since this talk page's creation, including the Guardian (which had "the debate of the century" as its headline), and RT.com. I'll add these to the page in the meantime.--Battle Salmon (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Bilorv mentions that Wikipedia does not ordinarily include debates as articles unless they are notable and failed to mention the Vidal-Buckley debated. I suddenly decided to pull that one up because, I thought, certainly it exists, and it is the closest analogue I can think of to the Peterson–Žižek debate. Suddenly I was stunned: it simply doesn't exist! There's an entire award-winning documentary film about those debates and yet the article doesn't exist. The lack of existence of that article, however, is a failure on the part of Wikipedia, and not a failure of the subject's notability. And like those debates, this debate is also certainly notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. They are subjects which any reasonable person would think to look up on Wikipedia and be surprised they couldn't find them.Malan88 (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.