Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of travel


 * 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. Sr13 07:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of travel

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is no recognised branch of philosophy called 'philosophy of travel'. The Alain Botton book The art of travel has been described by a reviewer as a book on 'philosophy of travel', but this is not enough to create a new branch of philosophy. The information in the article is not referenced and is common knowledge not philosophy. The essay linked to is a web published essay linked to the article by the author of the essay. Anarchia 11:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 11:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Alternatively (I didn't look), merge it into Travel and call it 'reasons for travel' or what have you. Douglasmtaylor 12:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsense POV - Flubeca Talk 12:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Philosophy of travel = branch of philosophy? LMAO. Pure, unadulterated OR--Targeman 12:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete an intelligent examination of the philosophical reasons for travel, how travel shapes the philosophy and worldview of travellers as opposed to non-travellers, how increased capacity for travel has altered the human condition and so forth would probably make a mighty interesting article, although it would probably be OR. This, on the other hand, is some near-nonsense that tries to tie philosophy to carbon emissions (???) and proclaim this a new "branch of philosophy" somehow.  I can only guess that this was written by someone very, very confused.  In any case, delete. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 21:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Not an accepted area of philosophical discussion. Banno 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I have found no specific references to this concept.DGG (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN. It's real -- people in the hostel movement talk about it all the time (me included). Bearian 02:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True, true. But you don't consider yourself a philosopher when you do ;-) --Targeman 03:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete Hello all, I started the article and on a number of occasions asked for help and advice as per the Talk:Philosophy of travel page. Any area of experience or otherwise can be explored by philosophy - that is the aim of applied philosphy in general - consider the philosphy of science or the philsophy of war. I entirely agree that the content at the moment needs some work. One aspect of applied philosophy is the consideration of the effects of people's actions and whether they are justified. Travel by plane causes carbon emissions - are they justified? One problem with this area is that there is not enough material on the subject - what better place than wikipedia to collect all there is? PSBennett 09:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But wikipedia is not the place for origional research. Banno 09:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point - is there a way of having the page so that it can be worked on but not linked to? I was hoping that I just missed some stuff and there was actually more work on the subject already out there. Is there a way of working on the page but not having it linked to so that it does not have to be re-written? PSBennett 09:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can use your sandbox to work on ideas before you post them - or you can work on your ideas on your own computer and then post them when they are ready. You are right that just about anyhting can be dealt with using philosophical techniques, but something can be a philosophical discussion of war without there being a 'philosophy of war'. I would suggest that you see if you can develop a 'travel (ethics)', or 'travel applied ethics', or 'travel (philosophy)' page. Just remember the (admittedly sometimes frustrating) 'no original research' rule. Anarchia 01:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination, this is not a philosophical subject. Yamaguchi先生 04:30, 23 July 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.