Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reasonism


 * 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reasonism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Self-admitted personal essay/WP:OR being reprinted here by the author from. Wikipedia is not a web host, a mirror of other websites, nor the place to publish one's original works. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Collectonian -- That article was originally written AS an encyclopedia article. It's notably low-key and general, without any personal opinions included. It was writen in encyclopedia style and was created specifically FOR Wikipedia and the like. KyZan (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan
 * KyZan, that's the problem. You've written a lengthy treatise on "reasonism" at your own website, and copy & pasted it here. That does not fall under Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. Basically what we need for that policy to be satisfied is proof that "reasonism" is known outside your immediate circle of correspondents. Where are the newspaper articles that talk about your theory? Where is it discussed in a textbook or magazine article? Where is any sort of independent evidence that your theory matters? A reason we insist on this stuff is that anyone can write a website pushing their opinions, but merely saying something doesn't make it notable. I could write a long diatribe about my social and political views on my own website, and copy & paste it to Wikipedia going "OMG! This is true and important!" but since it's unlikely anyone else knows or cares about my views then, no matter how worthy and in-depth my analysis is, it doesn't belong here. If I could demonstrate that my opinions were well known and publicized by reliable and independent sources, then I could make a case for putting it here.
 * If I do a google search on reasonism "kyrel zantonavitch" I can find nothing but proof that this is, in fact, nothing but a personal essay about your personal opinions. And that is not what Wikipedia is for. Reyk  YO!  02:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reyk -- If what you say is true, then the standards and values of Wikpedia are almost certainly flat-out WRONG. If an article is true and hugely important it should be included. Small neologisms and new synthesises shouldn't count against it. If the standard you cited applied back in the 1700s, then the GREAT French Encyclopedia of Diderot, Voltaire, etc. would never have been written. They commissioned many new articles about new subjects which featured original and even revolutionary analysis. Their high standards were: "Is it accurate? Is it relevant and important to life?" Wikipedia may well need to rethink its standards and values. At the least, someone needs to create a NEW encyclopedia based on these notably superior criteria. KyZan (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan
 * This discussion is no longer worth my time -- if it ever was. KyZan (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan


 * Delete Personal essay, original research, synthesis, soapbox, the works. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 03:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ten Pound Hammer -- You forgot a few: true, important, teaches, informs, fills a lacuna, supplies knowledge from an expert on the subject, improves Wikipedia, etc. KyZan (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan


 * Delete per TenPoundHammer. It can come back when it gets publish in a real journal.  Celarnor Talk to me  04:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Celarnor -- It won't be available then. KyZan (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan


 * Delete, personal essay. J I P  | Talk 05:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- it clearly violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research because it's a personal essay. Reyk  YO!  07:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reyk -- It is NOT a personal essay. It's an abstract article. It's an encyclopedia entry written by a single person (not a magical ghost) which is subject to revision by editors. Did you read it? No. KyZan (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan


 * KyZan, a personal essay is something written in essay format by a person, not an essay about something personal. And I don't think you can say whether or not he read it unless you live inside his head; when I first saw the article "personal essay" was definitely my first thought. Ironholds 20:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a personal essay. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Meditation rather than proper encyclopædia article. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete vain vanity in vain, and self-evident junk, despite the creator's repeated attempts to prove otherwise by harassing every editor in this AfD (which ironically have the opposite effect). JuJube (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * JuJube: Here's more "vane vanity" and "self-evident junk" for you: I likely understand this phenomenon and issue better than anyone else on this earth. And the article written and issue delineated is STUNNINGLY important. It's probably TOO GOOD for Wikipedia. Take your best shot. KyZan (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan
 * P.S. I haven't "harassed" a single good editor, contributor, or person here -- let alone "all of them." You can't name ONE. I'm respectful and polite to every semi-decent person I meet -- always. But I'm not a sycophant either. And I don't beg. KyZan (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan


 * Final Note to All: When it comes to this stunningly important issue, you're going to be left with only the poor articles on Reason and Rationalism. You're going to lose the knowledge this encyclopedia entry presents. No-one who consults Wikipedia will understand the relationship between the reasonist PHILOSOPHIES of Aristoteleanism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Objectivism. No-one who consults Wikipedia will comprehend the relationship between the reasonist CULTURES of Greece, Rome, Western Europe, and America. No-one will grasp the nexus between all of them, and that of the avant-garde ideologies of Austrian economics, Objectivist philosophy, libertarian politics, and reborn classical liberalism. This understanding will be lost, and the readers of Wikipedia will walk away ignorant. KyZan (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)KyZan
 * Final note to KyZan: When it comes to this stunningly important issue, we're going to be left with only the articles on reason and rationalism. We're going to loose the knowledge that this encyclopedia entry presents, and it will then be created by one of the other seven million wiki-users, most likely one who 1) understands how to make it look like an article and 2) can accept that he's sometimes wrong rather than having the attitude "I am always right, X disagree's with me, therefore X must be wrong". <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 22:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reasonism-worthy delete This article states, and I quote: "Reasonism is also a kind of clean, clear, legitimate, logical version of philosophical 'rationalism'..." Well, this article, is not clean, clear, legitimate, logical version of philosophical rationalism. It is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. It offers no references, external links or reliable sources. And, sadly, the writing is a bit of a muddle. Sorry if I am...dare I say it?...unreasonable. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2008 (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.