Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Outdatedness of Human Beings


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Outdatedness of Human Beings

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

Rejected speedy deletion. Doesn't come under A3, which it was tagged for, or A7, which it wasn't. Doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria as no relaible soruces can be found to back it up. Patton t / c 19:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - A Google search for "The outdatedness of human beings" returns precious few hits, but a search on Google.de for "Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen" yields much more information. The book seems to be notable, at least in the sphere of the the German language. The author is also quite notable in Germany. § FreeRangeFrog 19:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - BTW, the book is also highly quoted in German literature. § FreeRangeFrog 19:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Rename to "Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen" which is the actual title of the book (ISBN 3406476457). Keep the stub as a rather notable philosophical work.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with current title. Not many hits on Google books but the ones that do result list it as a significant work. Please use English, or we'll end up with article titles written in Arabic and Chinese. More importantly this translated title is used in some the academic literature. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per frog and Marshall--but I agree with Marshall's suggestion for renaming. Lawyer, maybe a redirect is in place, but that this is English Wikipedia does not mean that book titles need to be translated, esp. if the book hasn't been translated. Some literature may refer to a translated title, but surely their bibliography will have the correct and proper German title. There is no requirement for such translation in WP:USEENGLISH; WP:USEENGLISH and WP:USEENGLISH support a redirect, in my reading of it. But that should be an English redirect to the article and its German title, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep As for the title, as the book has not been translated into English, the title must be the German title--we cannot make up translated titles for ourselves when is no standard English form of the title. It has been translated into French as "L'obsolescence de l'homme, sur l'âme à l'époque de la deuxième révolution industrielle" and Italian as "L'uomo è antiquato; considerazioni sull'anima nell'era della seconda rivoluzione industriale."   I am not in the least convinced, however, that it is appropriate  for a separate article unless there is something to be said. That it would be notable enough to justify an article does not mean it must have one, unless someone is prepared to write more than a single paragraph of content. About 150 US libraries have the German, btw, & the existence of the French & Italian translation implies a considerable importance. My own University's copy though is in storage, not having been used in many years. I note that the German Wikipedia does not have articles on this or any other of Anders' individual books, & I respect their judgment. DGG (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I usually agree with DGG, and I'm surprised to find myself disagreeing now. In this case I disagree that we need "more than a single paragraph of content", because I think stubs have value, and I don't feel the German wikipedia's decisions should influence ours.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Others have good comments above. Here are my opinions:  (1) The title should be in German if no English translation exists and can be verified.  If we translate the title, that would be akin to original research.  (2) The existence or lack thereof of this article on dewiki is completely irrelevant to a deletion discussion here. The German Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are significantly different from (and stricter than) the English Wikipedia's criteria. (See also WP:NOTDE)  (3) This book appears to be notable enough for its own article.  The fact that it is currently a stub is largely irrelevant, unless it is determined that there is not enough material to ever expand it, but remember also that there is no deadline. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Move w/ Redirect Keep this as a redirect to German title, for now. Ventifax (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2009 (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.