Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of geography


 * 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..  Citi Cat   ♫ 02:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of geography

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Would have been an expired prod, but I thought it needed a little more attention. Article has been in a rudimentary state for months despite tags seeking improvement. NawlinWiki 01:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Had this article been modified and more interesting purpose applied to it, I could see where it might not be an AfD. The information can be merged elsewhere and most things on this page are redirects anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemnoch (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions.   -- Bduke 04:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, there is an outline here and this could easily be a COTW candidate. I think it's an important role of an encyclopedia to organize information in this way, at this level. Needs sources. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep My first reaction was to delete, but on checking I found that there are a few academics working in this area (so few that I think it's wishful thinking to put a request for expert attention on the page). But the clincher is that, that the article is poor at present is not a reason for deletion. Give it the benefit of the doubt. Banno 07:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article contains very little in terms of content, although being short in content is not a reason for deletion, a short article with mainly links to others is and that is what this article really is. The article has no additional content then already available in the history of geography article. Theoretically, the article could be a COTW in reality it is an obscure area and considering when the main geography article was up for Core COTF and barely any improvements occurred, I wouldn't have much hope for a COTW.AlexD 11:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, being "a short article with mainly links to others" is not reason for deletion. Nor is being obscure. Keep the stub. Banno 01:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

DGG (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per AlexD & Mnemnoch. Also, the title is misleading and/or inaccurate. It's about the analysis of data concerning patterns of philisophical development throughout diverse regions at best. --Evb-wiki 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It contains two paragraphs only, and they are OR, and trivial OR at that. No prejudice against creation of a proper article, but this is not a usable start.
 * Will you agree to keeping the stub? Banno 01:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice. The article is very poorly organized and unsourced. The overhaul it needs is so big it would be more practical to re-write it from scratch.
 * Comment Folks, here are the reasons for deletion. Being a poor article is not one of them. The idea that this is "not a usable start" is muddled - it remind me of the old-timer who, when asked for directions by a traveller, stopped and thought for a bit before saying "you can't get there from here". It might also be worth taking the article to the two related wikiprojects - something that appears not to have been done. There are other avenues to explore besides COTW. Deletion would be premature. Banno 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've placed mention of the article on the relevant projects. Banno 20:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. However, in the meantime people keep reading abysmal articles, further confirming Wikipedia's reputation for low quality. I firmly believe that every article, even a stub, has to stick to some standard of quality before going on line. Publishing sandbox cases like this one is embarrassing and IMO does a disservice to the project. Just my 2¢. --Targeman 20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then put up a proposal for a policy change to the effect that the Wiki should not contain any stubs. Until then, the argument I presented holds, and the article should stay. Banno 21:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against stubs per se - it's articles of any size which are low on quality and content that bug me. But you gave me a good idea - a policy change proposal to set higher standards. I'll think about it. --Targeman 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongest Keep Ever Delete just because it's unsourced, uninformative, uninteresting and untouched for seven months doesn't mean we should delete it. On second thought... I guess it is.  (Yes, that was really necessary.)Mandsford 23:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am a demon typicaly for deleting articles; but just being an orphan article is not good enough or an acceptable reason. I agree the current article is bad and has not been edited, but it can become a good article. It is a field of study with a publication dedictated to its pursuit. Surely with the same effort we expend on this RfD we could all pitch in and expand the article. This is notable and should be more than a definition. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The journal you mention stop in 2004 and a new journal focusing on the environment and not geography as a subject has now replaced it. Further, part of the reason for the article's submission for deletion was that it had been unworked on for nearly a year, a request for an expert had been in place for 6 months and I had already added it to the Geography wikiproject to do list a while ago when the article was created and it had still remained as an article that mainly linked to others (which is a criteria for deletion). Further the society you make reference to is now an environmental ethics society (http://www.cep.unt.edu/default.html). These are not focusing on the Philosophy of Geography but on the environment! If the article is going to be kept it needs its named changed to the philosophy of the environment or added to environmental ethics.AlexD 11:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Curious, since I've been unable to trace the journal past 2000. But this is relevant only in that it shows that the topic is an academic discipline, and that there is reasonable hope that the article will develop. Again, my point is that it is up to those wishing to delete the article to state why it should be deleted according to the policy. Being a poor article is not a reason for deletion. Banno 00:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Curious indeed, your subscription must not be up to date, if you go to and  you will find that the journal was merged in 2005 with Ethics, Place & Environment.
 * Perhaps I have not made clear under the criteria why the article was nominated. It was nominated because (prior to the recent dramatic slimming down that has occurred on the article) the original was mainly a set of links to other articles which is in the criteria for deletion. Further, the absence of a current journal shows that there is little work in the area and thus is not a notable field and thus should not have its own article and should if it is to be kept be merged with the main geography article or history of geography article, further the change of focus in the journal to environment and ethics shows that much of the work was not on the philosophy of geography.
 * As an ardent geographer I am keen to see every single article on geography kept, however, most of the philosophy of geography is covered in the history of geography article! Further to this already duplication, physical geography’s philosophy is parallel to that of the philosophy of science and human geography's philosophy is already mention in critical geography, marxist geography and the cultural turn. Thus my question to you is why do you want to keep an article that will merely duplicate (or was prior to its silmming down) what is already on wikipedia?AlexD 21:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So the original reason for this nomination no longer holds. Certainly someone who searched for philosophy of geography and found themselves at history of geography would be surprised, so a redirect will not work. The question at hand is not "why should we keep this article" but "why should we delete this article". The topic is notable, although minor. Let the article be. Banno 12:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True the original reasons no longer hold. I do agree with Vince that the article should be renamed to the philosophy of the environment. The question is why should we keep an article as after all this is an encyclopedia and not just a website attempting to list every single piece of information avaliable (that already exists and is called the internet). In regards to being redirected to the history of geography rather than the philosophy, after reading the user would understand why. Geography is shaped more so by philosophical changes than that of new finding, especially in terms of its recent history thsu combining the two makes perfect sense. AlexD 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Week Keep as per Zginder. Harlowraman 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per storm rider. Mathmo Talk 04:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but consider rename - Surely the purpose of having an encyclopaedia with 2 million entries is that it covers obscure topics. There is a society and there seems to have been journal articles on the topic, although perhaps renaming to philosophy of the environment should be considered. If the encyclopaedia is big enough for Wolf Hole, Arizona, it is surely big enough for this. --Vince 12:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, on the condition that the article will improve; or merge. If an article cannot produce any reliable sources to substantiate its data, then the article should not exist. However, such reliable sources about philosophy of geography do exist: there is a journal with promising articles here. The remedy is to access these sources and cite them with all deliberate speed, not delete the wiki-article, which would prevent the secondary research altogether. However, if Wikipedia cannot find an editor to accomplish these tasks (demonstrating the impossibility of research), then the article should not exist by itself. If the article continues to remain in its current condition, then we should merge it with a related article (perhaps environmental ethics or environmental philosophy?). —Kanodin 19:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that an article a stub, orphaned, and/or no one is working on it is no reason it delete. Articles are deleted because the topic is/has a problem. This is not the case.Zginder 22:17, 17 August 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.