Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of suspicion


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

School of suspicion

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article says, "School of suspicion is a famous term coined by philosopher Paul Ricoeur." My reason for deletion: WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * delete - no evidence that it is either a famous term or a term for a meaningful concept at all. Lom Konkreta (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence that this is a notable or important term. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The references clearly say that the expression is famous and use it as a canonical. A search in google books can provide mamy more sources. (Btw, the article has long been present in wikis in three other languages, and only recently the English wiki has catched up).--Sum (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is plenty of evidence that this is a famous, meaningful, notable and important concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have missed the point of the deletion rationale. The article isn't about a "concept" at all; as written, it's about the term "school of suspicion". So how is the alleged notability of the concept relevant? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The way to fix that is to reword the article to make it about the concept rather than the term, as an encyclopedia article should be, not to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made that change in a few seconds by changing two words. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And I reverted you in even less time. Sorry, I don't see any evidence "school of suspicion" is a concept at all. It's a term. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just take a look at all of the books and scholarly articles that I linked to above. They treat this as a concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You want me to look up 544 Google hits? Really? Did you, by any chance, look at all 544 of them and verify that they do indeed treat "school of suspicion" as a concept rather than a term? Pardon my skepticism. I did glance at one of them (the second hit), and it says "Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud have been called the masters of the school of suspicion." Again, that sounds like a term to me, I'm afraid. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Phil your "plenty of evidence" is 90% rephrasing of one and the same phrase about Marx, Nietzsche and Freud, and nothing to elaborate what exactly this school is. On the other hand, the phrase is indeed searchable, so why don't you and withMorons start with expanding the (miniscule) section about philosophical views of Paul Ricoeur? Lom Konkreta (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * comment. I will rephrase part of my earlier comments since Polisher of Cobwebs felt they were too personal: The article has enough references to meet wikipedia notability standards, and that's enough to end this fruitless polemic. Any further demand beyond the notability standards, like that the article should "elaborate" to better explain the topic to someone, is undue and should not be expected in an AfD. It is also my impression that some comments in this AfD are based on no knoledge of this topic or "continental philosophy" in general; when that is the case, I think it would be more transparent if users began their comments with "I don't know anything in this field, but...".--Sum (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, a personal attack rephrased to make it seem potentially not a personal attack and therefore just acceptable. I won't remove it, but I don't have any trouble understanding what it is, and nor will other editors. You are entitled to your view that other editors are ignorant kids, but per WP:NPA, you aren't entitled to state it. If your case were really convincing, you wouldn't need to stoop to this kind of stuff. To the extent the article is about anything at all, it's about Ricœur's ideas. "School of suspicion" doesn't cut it as an independent subject. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment The world "famous" should be avoided per WP:PEACOCK. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A "peacock" term can be kept if preceded by an "according to" or equivalent phrase attributing it to someone.--Sum (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Using the term is rarely a good idea. If the term is famous the article will show it clearly enough. In this case, the article does not show it, neither do the sources. It's one of the many terms he uses. I think we'd need articles specifically discussing his use of the term, & I don't see any at present  DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Paul Ricœur. Still reads like a dictionary entry, and seems to be mainly associated with this one author.  Sandstein   18:15, 3 February 2012 (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.