Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy

WikiProject Philosophy Deletion Discussions

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Philosophy. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Philosophy|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Philosophy. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy/archive

watch

Articles for deletion

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. Star Mississippi 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Serfdom in Tibet controversy

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Serfdom in Tibet
• Articles for deletion/Serfdom in Tibet controversy

Serfdom in Tibet controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a fairly unusual XfD but I submit that this article is based in large part on original research, despite citing a decent number of sources. The entire article plays out as a tit-for-tat "China says this" vs "Tibet exile/apologist says that" and there isn't really an attempt to actually frame anything within the context of "what actually happened".

It's understandable to say "the issue is contentious" but when the entire article becomes a matter of paraphrasing different POVs, there's very little that a reader can actually take out of the article. The only "real" encyclopedic piece of work I can see is "Tibetan welfare after the Chinese takeover", which itself does not seem particularly germane to the question of whether serfdom existed in Tibet prior to 1951, other than, perhaps, insinuating that the Chinese government does not care about Tibet or rather that the Tibetan social structure is so rigid that reforms have only been partially successful. Regardless, it does not feel as if this segment is appropriate for inclusion as a matter of historicity.

The same topic is covered to some length in the article Social class in Tibet, which approaches a similar topic from a perspective much more aligned with the standards on Wikipedia. I understand that approaching an article entitled "Controversy" is understandably difficult, but articles like Investiture Controversy and Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion handle their respective topics with substantially more grace and include the proper historical context instead of devolving eventually to namedropping entities and/or historians and assigning respective quotations without any contextualization as to what they mean. Augend (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, History, Buddhism, Geography, Social science, Asia, and Central Asia. Augend (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep & rewrite. Regardless of whether serfdom has or has not existed in Tibet, the topic has gained enough traction and is notable. A quick search of "serfdom in Tibet" on Google Scholar brings up loads of articles: [1]. Social class in Tibet is a suitable article, but I think this topic deserves its own page.

That being said, if this article survives AfD, it will need to be significantly rewritten. Definitely don't make WP:POV forks out of it, but then I agree that there must be significant effort to compare POVs into a coherent article. We can also jettison the "Human rights in Tibet" section. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep & rewrite. I'd mostly agree with The Lonely Panther's position here, that the debate itself deserves its own article, mostly even just to keep track of all the perspectives on the issues. The 'serfdom controversy' is significant enough on its own, as seen by the size of the literature, to deserve a separate article from Chinese administration in Tibet and the controversy over that.

Potential rewrite could for sure use a lot more definitions and information on the structure, prevalence, and development of class structures throughout Tibetan history. Additionally more detail on exactly which historical events contain 'competing versions of Tibetan History', such as the disagreements over the nature of the 1959 Tibetan Uprising, is vital. Literal sun (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 23:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Diagnostics of Karma

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Diagnostics of Karma
• Articles for deletion/Diagnostics of Karma (2 nomination)

Diagnostics of Karma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability added since the first nomination for this pseudoscientific nonsense. In the previous keepers' nom says "There are many independent and authoritative sources"; well I found no WP:RS that fit enwiki requirements. - Altenmann >talk 16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Religion, Spirituality, Science, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete All the sources and links are primary and I don't see any way this passes WP:BOOKCRIT nor WP:GNG. I cannot locate any appropriate sources. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Featuring a book on tee vee, or a book tour, are not evidence per se of notability. This article by itself doesn't fit into any regular category, and would have to be extensively edited to make sense. 19:05, 26 February 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 14:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Richards Heuer

Richards Heuer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a heavily WP:REFBOMBed WP:FANCRUFT article on a CIA analyst. Of the 13 sources:
- 3 are non-RS (a paid obit on legacy.com, the webpage of a company called ctovision.com, an Amazon author page listing)
- 4 are publications written by the subject of the article itself
- 1 is WP:PRIMARY - a collection of released documents on a U.S. Government website
- The remaining 5 simply don't mention the subject of the article at all
A WP:BEFORE on newspapers.com and Google Books fails to find anything to redeem it. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, Military, Psychology, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I am satisfied from [2] that the subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: His top two books are highly cited, which verifies the statement that he's a "giant in the field of analysis" in the CIA Studies in Intelligence obit mentioned above (which is not WP:PRIMARY—it's a peer-reviewed academic journal), so he seems to be notable per WP:ACADEMIC#C1. I agree this barely passes notability guidelines, but remember that intelligence analysis is not a high-profile world! Biogeographist (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:42, 12 February 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Martin Heidegger#Language. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Language speaks

Language speaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NOTE. Content only ever developed by one editor in March 2011. Does not explain the meaning of the phrase, which, to my non-specialist (but grad-level) knowledge is not considered especially important among Heidegger scholars. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Comment: If anyone does turn up some good sources on this that establish notability (and, ideally, provide at least some clue to its meaning beyond what anyone might just guess), they might consider whether it would make sense to edit the article with an eye to merging it into the main Heidegger article. At present, that article says almost nothing about his work on language, which is a considerable omission; I'm not sure there's even anywhere that a wikilink would fit to an article devoted to narrowly expounding on this short phrase. Of course, to make up an example, if the phrase only becomes independently significant in being singled out by, say, Derrida, that would be a good justification for preserving a separate article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Heidegger. A quick search in German returned two scholar articles [3] [4] decscribing Heidegger's tautologies, as well as a generalist article [5].

I am not a Heidegger scholar, nor a professional translator, but this is what de.wiki has to say on the sentence: [Heidegger saw] language as the foundation of being and the natural disposition that makes the human itself human in the first place. It is not the human who speaks, but "language speaks"[152] and it is only through language that a human becomes a speaking being.

While I am not convinced this deserves a page on its own (and if so, it should have the original title in German), it should be included in the main article about the philosopher, especially as his work on language is quite significant. Broc (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - in an effort to be helpful, I have tried to find definitions to satisfy the above objections. This source seems to address this on page 6. This source seems to address it on page 29. This appears to be a whole publication on the topic. What they mean, whether they accurately interpret and translate Heidegger, I can't say. JMWt (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing this research! I can't see the second source, but the first one would be worth preserving as a reference on the talk page in the event that we do decide to keep. However, I still think we're a long ways from establishing notability. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I have created a short section in the Heidegger article so there is now at least a possible target for a merger. It is still unclear to me, however, that there is enough content in this stub to meaningfully speak of merging—or that the phrase itself is of encyclopedia significance. (Heidegger's philosophy of language in general, needless to say, is another matter entirely.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support a redirect to the section created by @Patrick J. Welsh but it would require at least some expansion; might get around to doing that; even though I am a linguist and respect Heidegger's legacy in this area, this is overall too minor to warrant a separate article. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. All right, I'm working on it, as I said, but I have errands in between. To be continued. Working towards a redirect per @Patrick J. Welsh and @Broc. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine consensus for redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• The Herald, I'm very confused as to why this was relisted, there's a clear consensus to merge to the newly created section. Mach61 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2024 (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.

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. The discussion about the quality of the journal is beside the point because that is not relevant to the inclusion of the article. The issue here is notability, and in this regard, rough consensus agrees that there are insufficient sources to establish WP:GNG. The two "keep" opinions include the arguments "I don't know how the article can be properly sourced" and "We need to stop with the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", which indicates that their "keep" recommendations are not in line with applicable policies. Sandstein 08:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

European Journal for Philosophy of Religion

European Journal for Philosophy of Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not pass WP:GNG, the relevant notability guideline. The only source is a link to the journal's own web site, which doesn't say much and should no longer be considered reliable. The article states that it has been sold to a Chinese company, turned into a predatory journal, and will be replaced by a new legitimate journal with a similar name, but no sources are given for any of this, nor could I find any elsewhere. We cannot include this material without a source nor should we cut this back to a stub that includes only what can be sourced but fails to warn readers about the current state of the journal. Therefore, deletion seems like the appropriate outcome.

My prod saying all this was removed by User:Randykitty with a rationale implicitly referring to essay WP:NJournals: "indexed by Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Scopus, and ATLA Religion Database among others, deserves more dscussion". So here is the more discussion. My position: if it were a run-of-the-mill legitimate journal, as it seems to have been in the past, that might be a valid argument, but now that its recent legitimacy has been called into serious question, we can no longer rely on mere indexing as sourcing; we need in-depth sourcing of its fallen state, and I was unable to find such sourcing.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Commercial Biotechnology (2nd nomination), which appears to have some of the same cast of (possibly fictional) characters on its new editorial board and some of the same issues of being formerly legitimate but now potentially predatory. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Religion, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• delete I'm not finding any sources that meet the GNG. Issues with the board are very concerning but not, per se, a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment There is definitely something odd going on, although I cannot find sources that could be used to support an article. If you look at the archives' tables of contents for the journal, up until 4th Q 2022 the names and the themes read as decidedly European. Abruptly with the first issue of 2023 there is a change to mainly Chinese names and themes, with a few outliers that are probably middle-eastern. It is not unheard of for journals to move from one institution to another, although this one seems to be attempting to hide the fact. This is a change that would be good to note, but given that it doesn't seem to be documented (e.g. in the journal's own "about" page) I don't know how the article can be properly sourced, and if it cannot be then I !vote delete Weak keep but keep an eye on it as this change is very recent. Lamona (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. No longer a legitimate journal and seems to have become predatory. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
  • This is tricky because it means that we lose the information about the original, "legitimate", journal. In theory, if a journal makes a major change it should change its name and get a new ISSN. If we can find any reliable source talking about this change, we can keep the article and note that the journal became something else in 2024. Eliminating the entire journal, the good with the bad, doesn't seem "encyclopedic". I'll keep looking for discussion, etc. Also, if it is dropped by the indexing services (which may take a while) then that would be something to add to the article. Lamona (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
    • While I do agree with most of that, my largest concern is that we aren't meeting WP:N. Or at least I'm unaware of any non-trivial coverage by reliable independent sources. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - It is important for WP to keep a scorecard on journals with as good information as possible — because people will be using journals at WP to source articles. If you want to call this an IAR argument, that's fine with me. We need to stop with the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and start rethinking things: this is an information database for Siri and AI. Carrite (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I sort of get the argument, but we really don't have any meaningful information since we lack any real sources. AI is going to find what we have--what I think Wikipedia brings to AI is some idea of what's important about a given topic. The problem is that we don't know either because we lack meaningful sources. And, frankly, it's pretty reasonable to doubt some of the information we do have. And if our coverage gives people evidence that this is a real journal, when in fact we're not sure, that could result in real harm to folks (publishing in the wrong place, letting someone be conned out of $1K, etc.) Hobit (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm extremely sympathetic to the keep arguments that have been advanced here, but we have a major problem: the issue isn't that this fails WP:GNG, in which case we could say "in this particular case, we have good reasons to ignore GNG", the issue is that it also fails WP:V. Per nom, we'd have to stub this back to what we can verify, which would then be misleading, since we wouldn't have the information about its change of ownership. -- asilvering (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

*Comment to closer: please allow 1 more hour, I'm preparing my !vote. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Suppose this were a BLP. A SPA and an anonymous IP come by and drop negative comments. What do we do? Exactly: we delete these comments until they get sourced. But this is not a BLP, but a journal, so should we now just believe whatever the SPA and IP say? Personally, I'd say not. But let's look at the accusations and the evidence. The journal is basically accused of having been bought by a Chinese company and having been converted to a predatory journal. Predatory, really? The journal's own website says that it is a subscription journal, which you can buy for the really quite low subscription price of 190 Euros (institutional, the personal rate is 95). Submitting an article is free, no charges. Open access is available for payment of a fee, which is industry standard. (As an aside, this would be the first hybrid OA journal that is also predatory that I have encountered). Doesn't really look like a hijacked journal either. Looking at the most recent articles published, I don't see the usual crap that you'll see in a real predatory journal, but what appear to me to be legitimate articles from legitimate authors. A bank account for payments is given, which is located in Austria, not exactly a hot spot for predatory journals either. Nowhere do I see any evidence of impropriety, nor of the journal having been sold to a Chinese publisher. On the contrary. MIAR indicates that this journal is indexed some of the most selective databases around (Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Scopus, Index Islamicus, ATLA Religion Database, and Philosopher's Index), which normally is taken as a clear pass of WP:NJournals. This would not be the first time that somebody for one reason or another is disgruntled with a journal and tries to insert negative accusations into one of our journal articles. Until we see actual evidence, however, I think we should do what we usually do, which is removing the unsourced negative info until such time that this has been confirmed (or not) by sources instead of hearsay. --Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Hobit. We don't have SIGCOV in IRS sources of this journal, whether of the original or the hijacked version. This makes it even clearer why we should not have an article on this journal, since if it is predatory that info will not be in the standalone, and if it's not it's then just a pure advertisement for the journal.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: fails GNG. WP:NJournals is an essay, not a notability guideline. Shapeyness (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: an essay can be cited because it explains something quite well, so you don't have to repeat the same thing over and over again. But if you want to interpret my !vote as IAR, that's fine with me. Not following NJournals would be a loss to the encyclopedia, so, yes, if necessary: IAR. PS: I have edited the article. --Randykitty (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Your edits present it as if it is still a legitimate journal, rather than a predatory one. This is not consistent with its current appearance and I do not think it is a benefit to the encyclopedia or its readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• David, please show me your evidence that this is now a predatory journal. I have given the link to its "current appearance", which is legit. What am I missing? --Randykitty (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps you should read the version of the Wikipedia article you removed in your edits which, although unsourced, matches some of the particulars now visible in the journal. It is difficult to check the legitimacy of its newly published individual articles because they are subscriber-only, but they clearly have a different focus, consistent with what was said in that version. And the journal's new editorial advisory board [6] has a difficult-to-explain overlap with the editorial board discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Commercial Biotechnology (2nd nomination), including Peter Marra of U. Vienna and Leonie Levin of TU Munich whose existence beyond these editorial boards cannot be verified. Additional (non-reliable) evidence for the existence of the replacement journal described in the version you removed can be found in Janusz Salamon's bio in [7]. Because of these plausible claims that this journal has very recently transformed into a predatory journal, and corroborating (but not definitive) evidence for these claims, I think it would be a mistake to take its past indexing as evidence for its present legitimacy. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  • And more so, the whole point of WP:N is that we shouldn't be writing articles about things we don't have reliable, independent sources for. The fact we're debating if this is even a real journal (and in fact I have doubts it ever was...) is a problem. Not because it might not be, but because we don't have the sources to establish things one way or the other. Hobit (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Taking this as a research problem, I looked up each of the supposed "editors" (the four listed here) and none of them have any reference to this journal on their faculty web pages. That's not definitive evidence that the journal is not legit, but it is a clue. (They all appear to be known scholars in religion.) Then I looked up one of the members of the editorial board (Nopriadi Saputra) who turns out to be a business prof. Looking at the other members of the editorial board, none of them are in faculties of religion. I don't have the patience to check them all, but I did try some of the others listed on the page and not one of them explicitly works in the area of religion, and none mention this journal on their pages. An issue from 2021 on the wayback machine shows an entirely different editorial board (and notably no one seems to be from a business school). The "editor in chief" does list his position at the journal on his web site, which is an indication of prior legitimacy. So I surmise that at least BEFORE 2024 there is evidence that this was a legit journal, and that from 2024 it is less convincing. No, I still do not know what happened. Lamona (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree that there are some worrisome signs, but still wonder how a journal that has a really low subscription rate and does not charge authors can be hijacked or predatory. I'm also uncomfortable with WP editors deciding, based on unsourced conjecture/accusations and their own OR/SYNTH, whether a journal is legit or not. For the moment, all evidence we have (inclusion in very selective databases) is that this journal is legit. It's too bad that Cabell's currently not available on the WikiLib as that would be an authoritative source on whether or not this journal is legit. --Randykitty (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  How frequently do they reassess journals, do you happen to know? All signs are that the journal was legit until quite recently. (Of course, that would also be true of any journal that still is legit; the difference is that here we have some reason to call it into question, and too little in-depth information to refute that questioning.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know, but their website should mention that, I think. Anyway, if they listed the journal as fake, that would improve our article because then we'd have an RS that this journal has turned to crap. If they'd listed this as legit, I guess we'd still disagree about that be useful or not, depending on how often they update. The same goes for the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker which for the moment doesn't list this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2024 (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.

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. I see a consensus among editors to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppressors–oppressed distinction

Oppressors–oppressed distinction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub politics article, the criteria for it being nominated are as follows: poorly sourced Content Fork WP:CF covered else where by Social Class, Political Class, Marxian class theory, and Class conflict... but also Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICT.

Examples of poor sourcing are as follows: "Israel/Palestine : the quest for dialogue" (1991) [8] by Gordon & Gordon, does not contain the terms on 145 as claimed, likewise "Specters of Marx" (1994) [9], by Jacques Derrida, and "French intellectual nobility : institutional and symbolic transformations in the post-Sartrian era" (1996) [10] by Niilo Kauppi both do not contain the terms "Oppressor" and "Oppressed" at all. This leaves four disparate sources (two from Marxists, one from a conservative, and one about Israel Palestine) which technically pass verifiability, but don't seem to be discussing a unified concept or theory at all. Besides which, as mentioned earlier, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. RecardedByzantian (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RecardedByzantian (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• SUPPORT DELETION: There does not appear to be a unified topic here to merit an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 17:19, January 22, 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I am unconvinced that the article's topic is notable. However, some of the statements made by the OP in support of deletion are not entirely accurate. For example, while Derrida doesn’t use oppressor/oppressed terminology, he does employ the dominant/dominated distinction (see page 68). Same goes for Kauppi (page 61) and Gordon & Gordon (page 71). XMcan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Poorly reasoned nomination: None of Social Class, Political Class, Marxian class theory, and Class conflict mention oppressor-oppressed or dominant–dominated as opposing categories/concepts; valuable sources: "Israel/Palestine : the quest for dialogue" (1991) by Gordon & Gordon, states on page 145: But again and again I am inspired by Freire’s saying, "It is only the oppressed, who by freeing themselves, can free their oppressors" [11]; "Specters of Marx" “At least provisionally, we are placing our trust, in fact, in this form of critical analysis we have inherited from Marxism: In a given situation, provided that it is determinable and determined as being that of a socio-political antagonism, a hegemonic force always seems to be represented by a dominant rhetoric and ideology, whatever may be the conflicts between forces, the principal contradiction or the secondary contradictions, the overdeterminations and the relays that may later complicate this schema—and therefore lead us to be suspicious of the simple opposition of dominant and dominated, or even of the final determination of the forces in conflict, or even, more radically, of the idea that force is always stronger than weakness (Nietzsche and Benjamin have encouraged us to have doubts on this score, each in his own way, and especially the latter when he associated “historical materialism” with the inheritance, precisely, of some “weak messianic force”’). Critical inheritance: one may thus, for example, speak of a dominant discourse or of dominant representations and ideas, and refer in this way to a hierarchized and conflictual field without necessarily subscribing to the concept of social class by means of which Marx so often determined, particularly in The German Ideology, the forces that are fighting for control of the hegemony." [12]; "French intellectual nobility : institutional and symbolic transformations in the post-Sartrian era" (1996) by Niilo Kauppi "In its present meaning, the term “field” was partly created as a reaction to Marxist political-economic definitions of social phenomena and represents the systematization of Bourdieu’s structural approach. The field is composed of capital, an illusio, and consists of certain pertinent features. The concept contains some very Marxist elements: for example, the opposition dominant/ dominated. In accordance with yet another use of homologies, a field will be divided into dominant and dominated groups, and the dominant groups will themselves be divided into dominant-dominant and dominant-dominated (a:b; b1:b2; etc.). There is a definite tendency to construct a system—not surprising for a French intellectual who has been trained in philosophy.” [13]: sources do contain the dominant-dominated opposition, which is referred to as synonymous to oppressors-oppressed distinction in the lead of the article. No reason to delete. Phil from somewhere (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  What you've done there is unsourced original research. Which is what the article is doing. The creator of the article User:SummerWithMorons has had many such articles deleted on those grounds. But you're correct, perhaps I should have nominated this one for those reasons (eg. WP:OR).

  Making the special case that this (the usage in those three disparate sources) is a unique meaning or usage of class politics (without a source), is a form of special pleading. That's not how Wikipedia works. We're not a catalogue of specific words and usages selected without any sources linking them. We're not an authority in of ourselves, capable of linking sources just because an editor says they're linked. That's more the work of a dictionary. The article should obviously be deleted as it is WP:OR regardless of how it's been nominated. RecardedByzantian (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, you call quoting the article's original sources original research?? Good joke to start the day Phil from somewhere (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, I called the idea that all three of those sources/usages are related; Original Research. Not the sources themselves.

  Either all three are related (despite being from drastically different people, countries, areas of thought, and eras) because this is a general dictionary entry (and hence not appropriate encyclopedic content), or they're related because this is some unique and noteworthy usage (which would require a source OUTSIDE of Wikipedia saying so), or they're not related because this page is Original Research stringing unrelated sources together to construct an essay as if it's in Wikivoice.

  So we should Delete as per WP:NOTDICT, OR find the imagined source as per WP:RS and WP:NN, OR Delete as per WP:OR. This is what I'm saying... and it's my view that the page should be deleted. RecardedByzantian (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Deletion - although my nomination was perhaps not as thorough as it could have been, the article is still WP:OR. We can't just decide that two usages are linked, and then construct an article/essay around that opinion. RecardedByzantian (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Two ways this might be approached:

1. The article is all about Marxist theory and responses to it, not the distinction itself, which is surely as old as the practice of forced labor. There might be a good WP:merge target to an existing article on Marxism. Otherwise, if it kept as its own article, "(Marxism)" should be appended to the title.
2. One might ask – in addition to, or independently of, other articles on Marxism – whether there is anything in this article that is not already covered at oppression. If this article is to be about more than Marx's usage and its legacy, that is another possible merge target.

As it stands, however, while harmless, the article fails the WP:notability criterion. This distinction itself has not been shown in the existing article to be significant enough have generated its own literature. Hence it is not a enough of a topic to merit coverage in an encyclopedia.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep A quick Google Scholar search shows that this is a very notable concept in Marxian political theory. Notability is based on the existence of sources, not whether those sources are cited in the article. And although I agree with others that this article is not in the best shape, deletion is not cleanup. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's in such poor shape that deleting it and letting some interested party re-write it from scratch would more than likely produce an article of better quality. But they'll have a tough time separating it from Marxian class theory in my opinion. 194.223.27.216 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: It's covered by Marxian Class Theory. Part of the problem is that none of the authors are seeking to define or specifically talk about the "Oppressors–oppressed distinction" so it's disingenuous for Wikipedia to decide the terms are some how pivotal or important just because they get a mention here and there. Perhaps if there was a source focusing on these terms, or even a chapter, section, or subheading. But there's not. There's passing usages - the authors don't focus on the topic, so why are we?.... well it's because the American right are using claims about the "Oppressors–oppressed distinction" in the campaign to bolster and spread the conspiracy theory Cultural Marxism - here's right wing conspiracy nut Andrew Breitbart using the phrasing in his description of what cultural Marxism is: [14]. Here's the far right American think tank The Heritage Foundation using it for the same purposes: [15]. Here's American Conservative Think Tank Foundation for Economic Education using it in that same way: [16].

So one side of politics IS focusing on this phrasing - Conservative American Think Tanks. Here is Andrew Lynn, a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture debunking the attempted twisting in 2018 [17]:

"Flash-forward to the present. According to conservative journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan, today’s cultural Marxists are deeply invested in toppling power structures of patriarchy and white privilege. They do so, according to this version of history, by following the Frankfurt School thinkers in transposing the oppressed-oppressor conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie into the cultural realm, assigning oppressed status to various nonprivileged identity groups. Emergence of a victimhood culture follows, as groups laying claim to various identities articulate grievances against dominant groups and the structures that serve their interests. Rational adjudication of truth then becomes subsumed under demands for the subversion of power, patriarchy, and privilege across unjust social institutions, perpetuating continual identification of conflict within the established social order." [Emphasis added]

"There are many problems with this narrative, of course, and here’s one: Such a vision of an ever-in-conflict social order is only loosely “cultural” and could be constructed entirely independent of anything “Marxist.” You can find it in Machiavelli, Hobbes, Nietzsche, and Ayn Rand, to name just a few. Indeed, today the most popular accounts of society as groups in perpetual conflict over resources—whether material, symbolic, or political—are found in best-selling books by evolutionary psychologists and biologists eager to apply their disciplinary insights to questions far outside their field. It is more the diffusion of Darwin—not Derrida—that underlies popular conflict-grounded accounts of morality and culture today."

This is a sound DELETE from me. Unless we can find leftist marxist theorists using it as at least a subheading - I'd even settle for just someone bolding it on the page. But in actual fact, they don't use it that often, the sources use it once or twice in passing IN WHOLE BOOKS, and it's the American right wing, and far right who are trying to bolster its usage as a paradigm of explanation for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Wikipedia shouldn't go joyously romping into a political minefield just because a particularly prolific editor who has had many of their essays deleted before carelessly wanders into one without asking "Is this really making something out of this particular terminology?". 194.223.27.216 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

While the concern is valid, I'm not seeing any of that in the article as written, which cites to Derrida, Hegel, and Lenin, who are hardly right-wing thinkers. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

...and what do you make of my statement that they're not particularly focused on the topic of the "Oppressors–oppressed distinction" but are instead using the terms infrequently?194.223.27.216 (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

- KEEP and turn into a disambiguation page. This is a unifying thread and key aspect of a lot of political philosophy, as well as various political ideologies. As such, I do not think that the reasoning provided here justifies a complete deletion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this entry is of encyclopedic value, even as a disambiguation page. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Patrick J. Welsh pointed out that the concept and corresponding article on Oppression already includes the distinction, so any disambiguation or linking should happen there. I no longer think retaining this page would be useful, even as a disambiguation page. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

- Keep notable concept in various contexts. Phil from somewhere (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

- Comment - there's a lot of people saying "keep" then saying "Oh this is a thing in politics" - but then not offering any substantive sources that discuss the topic, which is apparently (according to these voters) substantial and well known in political discourse. I would like to remind whoever closes this discussion, that on Wikipedia, voting is done by the winning arguments - not by tallying the numbers (see WP:POLL and WP:Consensus). Demanding that an article be kept because it matches someone's personal viewpoint or their own original research, is not the same as having enough sources to substantiate the claims of the CURRENT article in it's current condition. Currently, this article should be deleted, as the sources don't substantiate it as a notable topic WP:NN. No one has presented either a policy or source based argument against that fact. Just because a word appears in many texts, doesn't warrant Wikipedia creating a dictionary entry or stub article for it. Without sources, the keep claims are just adding to the original research that creeps into Wikipedia because we don't delete articles like this one. 194.223.63.134 (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

- Delete - We have several articles already about adjacent philosophical/academic/activist traditions that focus on (leftist) identity oppression. This isn't the name of something that needs an article on its own, I think; I wanted to say this is an unsourced neologism, I'm not sure that's right, maybe as OP says not a dictionary. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I have reviewed the above and continue to support deletion. The concept of oppression includes within itself the distinction between the person/group/system oppressing and those oppressed. (Hence the hits in Google Scholar are entirely unsurprising and not in-themselves relevant.) It is possible that somewhere there is a dissertation deconstructing the meaning of the dash in "oppressors–oppressed", but this has not been established – and is not at all likely to be established – as an encyclopedic topic.

If, as some comments above suggest, this is actually about covertly correcting current American political discourse, I would submit that this is not the appropriate use of an article with this title. If that is the point, it should be made explicit in a fresh article to be assessed from scratch for inclusion in Wikipedia. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Striking my earlier !vote and changing to merge whatever can be salvaged into oppression. I'm persuaded by Patrick. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete
  1. The article transgress Wikipedia:No original research
  2. The article may be a pov-fork of Oppression or Marxism.
  3. The idea that Marxists (and only Marxists) divide population between oppressors and oppressed is a variant of the Cultural Marxism narrative, a far-right conspiracytheory with roots in nazi Germany so ping @Volunteer Marek, Doug Weller, and Horse Eye's Back:

  Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete It doesn’t look like sources actually support the text except in some vague, original research-y, way, never mind establish notability. Volunteer Marek 19:22, 10 February 2024 (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.

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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

David Wood (Christian apologist)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/David Wood (Christian apologist)
• Articles for deletion/David Wood (Christian apologist) (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/David Wood (Christian apologist) (3rd nomination)

David Wood (Christian apologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I doubt the notability of this per WP:GNG, most sources on this article are either self-published or trivial mentions let alone significant coverage. A quick look yieled no presence of three reliable sources with none of them consisting of sustained coverage, in my findings I acknowledge that Mr. Wood had contributed in a book but this seems to be published by a self-publisher and I deem it to be subject to WP:USESPS. I had initially applied the {{Notability}} tag before it was reverted due to this being a "long-standing article with numerous sources", I disagree with this per WP:NEXIST and I would appreciate if another consensus is gathered on this. NAADAAN (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NAADAAN (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. for an odd reason the past nominations were not on the talk page's history, I still stand that a new consensus is needed since the first AfD that was concluded dates from nearly 13 years ago and there hasn't been any sustained coverage since and the 2nd AfD voted primarily for delete. NAADAAN (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Christianity, Internet, New York, Virginia, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Probably delete. I'm normally an inclusionist, and have some doubt about my ability to be impartial in a case where someone's sole purpose in life seems to be spreading religious intolerance, hence the qualification "probably". But I fail to see any particularly noteworthy facts in this article—being arrested for disturbing the peace seems to be one of his chief accomplishments, and that's not particularly noteworthy in itself, even if he got an apology and compensation. Someone has gone through and sourced this article very thoroughly, but almost entirely with sources that are either self-published, promotional, or which cater to a narrow niche of like-minded viewers. I'm not sure that this individual veers over into "hate speech", but I can't see what the justification for this article is. What is his source of notability, besides appearing in videos touting his miraculous conversion from juvenile delinquent, criticizing Islam, and peddling intolerance? All of that sounds very ordinary to me, and being ordinary on tape doesn't make it more noteworthy. P Aculeius (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Of course a banned YouTube-creator on a topic that is not bon-ton in establishment circles in Western countries won't have much of articles to go by. What a disingenuous point to make. Anyone online who is even somewhat outside the establishment right probably recognizes him, however. This deletion discussion (with VERY few participants) looks like a blatant attempt to get him a bit memory-holed with a veneer of "due process". He is very notable within the anti-Islam scene, which is all that should matter. Furthermore, caring that Islam is a "minority" relgion is a hideously Western-centric view. There are tons of users of English Wikipedia in Muslim-majority countries. 78.22.113.217 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NMO, I don't see how he wouldn't be in "bon-ton [with the] 'establishment'" as you said. Your remark regarding "VERY few participants" can be explained by the fact this was started yesterday. "He is very notable within the anti-Islam scene" WP:YANARS, there nonetheless is a general criteria for people to be considered reliable enough to warrant an article independent of any 'scene' they're in. I agree with your assertion about concerns of Islam supposedly being a "minority" religion but this is off-topic. NAADAAN (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

What an odd perspective. Precisely what does this have to do with "the establishment" or its supposed circles? If you mean that he's only known in a small niche community consisting of like-minded people, that hardly demonstrates notability. He could certainly be notable as an anti-Islamic bigot, but nothing in the article suggests that he's particularly notable: there are lots of notable hatemongers, but just giving interviews to niche sources, attending protests, and self-promotion doesn't make one notable.

You claim that he's "very notable within the anti-Islam scene", but what's the evidence of this? What about this makes him notable to the general public? What does this "scene" consist of? Surely not everyone who has a negative view of Islam. If this is someone whom the general public might be expected to recognize, why are the only mentions of him in non-specialist sources about being arrested for disturbing the peace? Lots of people make the news for negative reasons without being particularly notable.

The point about the discussion having "VERY few participants" suggests that you're unfamiliar with AfD. Most discussions only attract a few participants, especially if the subject is little-known but not obviously a hoax, and in the first couple of days. I only saw the AfD because I was notified as a member of WikiProject West Virginia. Attracting four participants within the first day of discussion is reasonably good. P Aculeius (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure being known in anti-whatever circles gets you notability. He appears to have little to no coverage in any sources we'd use for notability. He's mentioned many times, but always about getting arrested or about what he said, not really about him. And to be honest, most AfD discussions get very few participants, it's seen a drop in the last few years. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources in the article arguably aren't the greatest, but they are certainly not mainly "self-published or trivial mentions" as claimed by the deletion nominator. The sources in the article are mainly Christian media and local newspapers, which qualify as WP:RS, and even gives detailed information on his personal background (not very "trivial"). There are a few references to self-published sources, but not to the extent of the main content of the article. The article's content also seem to demonstrate notability. Thismess (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  In response to this, I have compiled a breakdown of every source on the article that you are free to verify by your own care and refute:

  • [1, 4, 5, 6, 17, 19, 24, 31-38] Self-published and/or WP:ABOUTSELF;
  • [2] A passing mention on a local newspaper, most of it directly citing the Acts17 website (self-published);
  • [3] A Google search, WorldCat, and a search on the Wikipedia Library yielded nothing so I am unable to verify it, making me think this could be fabricated;
  • [2, 7, 8] Interview which fails to be independent;
  • [9] A translation of [7] which is a non-independent interview;
  • [10, 12, 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28] Passing and/or trivial mention (mentioned twice or less) notwithstanding reliability concerns in some sources;
  • [11] Article written by Mr. Wood which fails to be independent;
  • [13] Opinion piece which are "rarely reliable for statements of fact" but could be a suitable source if reliability is proven;
  • [18] "The Religion of Conquest" doesn't seem awfully reputable and it seems to be a website advertising Mr. Wood's show, raising COI concerns;
  • [21] Dissertation written by Mr. Wood which can be "considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" per WP:SCHOLARSHIP;
  • [24] I deem this to be reliable, but it doesn't have much relevance in of its own and raises concerns of WP:BLP1E notwithstanding that Mr. Wood is not the main focus of the article;
  • [29, 30] Self-published per WP:NEWSBLOG;

  Please note that per notability is defined per WP:BASIC as there being "significant coverage in multiple (at least three) published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" which I am afraid this article doesn't fulfill. NAADAAN (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  For reference, I just added seven new reliable sources to supplement the article, just to establish that he has been covered multiple times in WP:RS. Thismess (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  The problem here isn't so much that the sources aren't reliable—it's that they're not sources that tend to demonstrate notability, and nothing that you've cited them for is particularly notable. Even if we suppose everything in the article to be correct and proven, there's still not much basis for concluding that this person is in any way notable. The fact that the only thing cited to non-specialist media merely indicates that he was arrested and later compensated in connection with a protest, tends to underscore his lack of notability. P Aculeius (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

His personal life and Islamophobia seem rather trivial. Many people have similar stories or views. What about these things makes this person notable, besides the fact that he's publicized them in niche sources that only a small number of people watch? P Aculeius (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - I know nothing of this, but a person with 700k followers is surely notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Follower count is independent of notability, refer to examples on WP:NYOUTUBE and previous consensus on cases where "even with large subscriber numbers, a subject does not have enough coverage in reliable and independent source", there is a general notability guideline that I am afraid this article does not meet. NAADAAN (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That follower count sounds impressive, but I don't really know whether it is, much less how significant it is. If that's the most noteworthy thing about him, I still don't see how notable he can be. Surely there must be some coverage of him in non-specialist media, beyond the mere fact that he was arrested at a protest, and then compensated after suing the city. If not, it's hard to see how notable he could be. P Aculeius (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Just for reference against the claims that he is not notable in any way, it should also be mentioned that he has a total of nearly 200 million views on YouTube, and even his Wikipedia page has close to 500 daily views (that is 44,000 views in 90 days), both of which are very significant numbers. He is clearly a notable person in any normal meaning of the word, who attracts a lot of public interest. Thismess (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The point of contention isn't that he lacks total notability in any way, it is that he does not meet the general notability criteria for having a page on Wikipedia. If you take a look at WP:NYOUTUBE, you can see previous consensus and precedent of content chreators who have tenfolds as many numbers as Mr. Wood and still were not deemed notable enough to warrant an article. NAADAAN (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I know, but they probably didn't have any coverage in third party reliable sources, which Wood indeed has. Thismess (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

These aren't good sources—nearly all of the ones that aren't self-published or promotional are obscure, niche, or fringe sources, or are being cited for things that don't go toward demonstrating the notability of the subject; for instance, the discussion of an Islamic community center proposed in lower Manhattan. Wood may have had an opinion about that, but having an opinion about something doesn't make anyone notable! Nor does being acquitted of inciting a riot, which isn't even cited to a specific author or publication, but to "Associated Press re-print", an utterly worthless citation as it supplies no details that could be used to locate the source or assess its value (although if all it does is say he was one of four people who were acquitted, it wouldn't demonstrate notability anyway). Nor does the fact that various movements or organizations that Wood is supposedly involved in have been called "hate groups" by the Southern Povery Law Center. Unless they have something substantial to say about Wood, they don't go toward proving his notability! P Aculeius (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

We've heard you already. How many times are you going to rant about the same thing over and over? Thismess (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You're the one who keeps repeating that he's notable because there are reliable third-party sources in the article. P Aculeius (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

And I just added three more journal/book sources that describe him and his work. That's in addition to the two SPLC sources and the seven other references I recently added. There are now around 30 third party reliable sources in the article. Thismess (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to give an update on my improvements to the article over the last several days. In order to more firmly establish the notability of the article, I have now added around 20 new sources to the article, making the total of third party reliable sources to around 35 sources. The new sources include some commentary on Wood's work by prominent individuals/journals/organizations, and a couple new stories, which was a key issue. I have also removed several unnecessary and undue self-published sources, leaving only some that provide a few sentences of supplementary information. I believe my improvements to the article now firmly demonstrates the notability of the subject of this article. Thismess (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to examine new additions to the article since its nomination. But please, do not count sources, it's quality that matters, not quantity. Having 30 or 37 mediocre sources will not convince editors to Keep an article while 3 high quality sources can be enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, a lot of these look like passing mentions NAADAAN (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Appears to be known for being a sort of a "loudmouth", in getting his points across. I don't see much of any extensive sourcing in RS in the article; guy gets arrested and says stuff people don't like, but doesn't seem to have enough coverage about him as an individual to get an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Disliking Wood's style or hating his guts as the first "delete" vote on here is not a valid reason for deletion. Thismess (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly, it's the paltry sourcing I can't see as useful. There just isn't enough of it for doing whatever it is he does. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Stupid reason for deletion. One couldn't have brought a weaker case than the one listed by yourself. Because you find someone a "loudmouth" shouldn't have any bearing as to whether they should have a wikipedia page or not.

  Based on the weekly page views, a following of over 700k as well as hundreds of millions of YouTube views, it's difficult not to say he is notable. Especially with his affiliations with various well-known companies such as the Babylon Bee, Jay Smith and other well known individuals and organisations, the sourcing has greatly improved.

  One paragraph from yoursehas full of opinion has no validity in the overall discussion. Leftistman (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  See my comment about the sourcing above, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is purely based on faulty sourcing, not numbers. There have been previous consensus of influencers with more views and a bigger following than Mr. Wood getting their article removed purely based on sourcing. NAADAAN (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe for you, but this user also admitted a problematic personal bias against Wood for deletion, same as the first delete vote. Thismess (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fine, he's a subject matter expert in his field, we still have no sourcing about him, doesn't change my point. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per ThisMess. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Delete it: I'm with Oaktree on this one. 2600:6C52:4C40:E77:31EE:3361:AE9B:AA57 (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Being this user's first edit ever on Wikipedia, with no argumentation whatsoever, I'll assume it does not hold much weight. Thismess (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• What's the rush? If/since this page has some documentation, but if so non-noteworthy, won't it just die a normal death? I vote leave it on for a year and see how many people visit this page. Isn't Wikipedia for the public? I don't think the footprint is costing us that much space. Why not let public interest prove its usefulness long-term?Feeblemind57 (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)FeebleMind57
• Keep. Source 4 and Source 5 has established that he is a notable Christian apologist. Both sources are not self-published. Source number 19 showed notability but as the journal is likely to be biased it may not count. The fact that he is noted in 13 shows that he has notability. Source 13 didn't see Wood in a good light, showing that this particular source is not WP:ABOUTSELF. Source 20 is quite reliable, and mentions him by name as an example of Christian apologetics, showing that he is notable as one. Source 22 also shows notability as he is mentioned in a journal that is not related to Christianity. In short, I see enough notability to keep this article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Hard to find any noteworthy elements in the profile of a typical alt-right YouTube personality. Perhaps he might be in the future, as of now, there is a dearth of appropriate WP:RS and :WP:IS sources and I strongly support its deletion. Otherwise, this could potentially lead to a proliferation of similar requests for countless other relatively famous (or infamous) YouTubers, which will set a counterproductive precedent StarkReport (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see why him allegedly being "alt-right" has anything to do with his notability. I don't see him as "typical" either, given that he has a PhD in philosophy and has received praise from prominent scholars/philosophers for his work, as noted in the article (and criticism by the SPLC). He has also been noted with noteworthy and controversial public activism. The article is also full of WP:RS (including high-quality sources), contrary to your claim. Thismess (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Those who have praised his work, such as conservative Christian newspapers and other far-right political bloggers, hardly meet the WP:IIS:

  An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective

  and the purported "full of WP:RS" appears to be WP:NOTRELIABLE.

  Again, he might merit an article in the future, akin to Pamela Geller, but as of yet, there is a clear insufficiency of significant substance to warrant coverage. The only viable option is deletion. StarkReport (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is not a single "far-right blog" or "conservative Christian newspaper" that has praised his work in the article. Scholar Michael R. Licona has, philosopher William Lane Craig has, theologian Scott Ventureyra has, and author William Kilpatrick has. The SPLC has criticised his work. All providing notability in one way or another. And your claim that the article has no WP:RS for other coverage of Wood's activities is a blatant lie. Thismess (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree with NAADAAN's source review and I haven't found anything else in reliable sources that have significant coverage, rather than trivial mentions. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the source review was made prior to a number of new sources being added to the article, including high-quality books/journals. Thismess (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

*Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article as shown in NAADAAN's source eval, and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.

Article has been refbombed, but if someone finds WP:THREE sources that meet WP:IS and WP:RS and have WP:SIGCOV which requires direct and indepth coverage of the subject, ping me. Please don't list a dozen sources, the three best sources will do to demonstrate notability.  // Timothy :: talk  06:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. There seems to be a misunderstanding about notability where mentions of a name are assumed to confer notability. I waded through as many of the refs as I could (and some were not readily available to me) but nothing that I could see got close to WP:GNG.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll address the latest comments with more concrete points on some sources that can not be deemed "trivial":

Ref 4 and 20 gives non-trivial summaries of Wood's YouTube/online work in an academic journal and a news magazine (quoted in the article), giving him notability as an apologist

Ref 9 is an in-depth local coverage of a debate with Wood and an atheist, noting his arguments, which also intertwines with his background story as he notes

Ref 6, 13 and 14 are non-trivial academic discussions in books/article discussing Wood's background story in relation with his field of Christian apologetics, showing it has notability itself

And we have the 4-year lasting coverage of numerous news articles about his activities in Dearborn, which has been noted by even deletionists to have notability. Thismess (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Keep (switched from above): Some of the sources above from Thismess put this individual over the GNG mark. [18], [19], [20]  // Timothy :: talk  19:04, 4 February 2024 (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.

Categories for deletion

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Logic. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Philosophy|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Logic. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy/archive

watch