Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in philosophy

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. No consensus to delete here, and the argument that the information is better presented in another form isn't really a reason for deletion. If editors are interested, they can always discuss merging the information elsewhere. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in philosophy

Including the following 18 constituent pages:

This "years in philosophy" project appears to be abandoned and incomplete. Many of the pages listed here have not been edited significantly since they were created in 2007, and most contain only a few events (often just publications). In general, it seems to me that the history of philosophy is much better treated now by prose articles such as History of philosophy (and its subarticles), and lists of births/deaths are already handled in lists like List of philosophers born in the 20th century.

Zetawoof (ζ) 22:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of years in science which does exist. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy is a liberal art, not a science. Of the events listed in this series, only a small proportion could be classed as either science or the philosophy of science. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Changed to Comment philosophy is nowhere near as well defined as the other subjects which use this format. If this was a clearly defined subject (and i mean very clearly, like TV is not Sports, or Science is not NASCAR) that was not well done, i would say keep. anything notable in these lists could just as easily be found at xxxx (the year), xxxx in literature, or occasionally at xxxx in science.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are suggesting we should move the fact that Peter Unger published Ignorance: A Case for Skepticism from 1975 in philosophy into 1975 in science? No, that's not really appropriate. Or into 1975 in literature? That's just as inappropriate. Or perhaps just into 1975? I don't see any other books–fiction, non-fiction, popular or academic–listed in 1975. Philosophy is a pretty clearly defined subject: it's what philosophers do in philosophy journals and publish in philosophy books and talk about at philosophy conferences held in philosophy departments at universities. Currently the lists primarily tell us about philosophy books being published, and the births and deaths of philosophers. There isn't any problem of working out inclusion here: it's perfectly clearly defined. You put a philosopher who is born or died in that year on the list if there are reliable sources to establish the notability of that person. As for books? That's just as easy: most of the books listed are written by notable philosophers or you could, in a pinch, go and find a source by looking in JSTOR or on PhilPapers showing that a bunch of philosophers have considered it important enough to write paper length responses to. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some of the works could easily be in either science or literature. literature includes nonfiction works, philosophical works. perusing the articles here, i do see the trend towards an inclusive (i think too inclusive) list of all works published by academic philosophers. some books like Entropy by rifkin are definitely philosophical works, but are outside the academic mainstream. thats why i think these lists wont work, as the boundary between academic philosophy, scientific philosophy, philosophical literature, fiction with philosophical content (daniel quinn, "Jonathan livingston seagull" (i know, yuck)) popular philosophy, religion, spirituality, are too undefined. If people want to work out how to define these articles boundaries, and think they can, i wont stand in the way, thus my change of "vote". good luck with the improvements, if they stay.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Examining the list, I think about 9/10 of the items are clearly philosophy. Individual items are subject to discussion, but we do not delete articles because a sentence or two in it is wrong or debatable, or we'd have remarkably few articles. Philosophy in the modern period is what academic philosophers do, and in earlier periods the works they consider to be philosophy--there is only an operation definitional for this and most other subjects. sports and Science have similar problems of definition . (Is chess a sport? is bridge?; is political science a science? NASCAR is well defined, because it is operational--it's the participants in a defined set of competitions.) Very few of the works would be considered literature by people who study literature. The way to deal with incomplete articles and lists is to work on them. It took quite a while to develop Wikipedia to this point, and it will take quite a while to develop all aspects of it optimally. What I am basically saying, is there is no policy-based reason for deleting incomplete articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of material to fill out the lists especially in the twentieth century, it just takes time to compile them. There is more than enough material to fill them out and a more complete version of the lists (which is possible, it just takes time and effort to produce) would be a useful and interesting resource for readers just as the other "Year in field" lists are for other topics. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is that there is no clear reason to put any particular book or person or paper in any of these lists, except for some of the earlier ones. If there were an accepted set of awards each year for the best philosophical works then we could write articles of this type. But there isn't. And philosophy is such an introverted subject that there is almost no outside view of it. So the only criterion is to put in things you like and take out ones you don't. Basically there are no reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there are. You only need to establish the notability of the philosophers in question: we have enough sources to note that, say, Saul Kripke is notable, and we have plenty of sources saying Naming and Necessity is pretty damn important. Why not include that on 1980 in philosophy in just the same way we would include the publication of Origin of Species in 1859 in science or whatever. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be entirely an inherited notability argument along the same lines as " This popstar is notable, therefore this compilation album with one of his tracks is worth an article". Are there any references covering the subjects of these articles? Dingo1729 (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not an inherited notability argument: it's simply an argument that there is plenty of material and quite reasonable methods to determine inclusion: if the philosophers are notable enough to be in Wikipedia (and, well, most of those currently listed in the X in philosophy articles are) then they are notable enough to be listed as having been born or died. As for their books, if push came to shove, it is easy enough to find reliable sources for a huge majority of the stuff listed. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with DGG: WP has several "List of years in ..." articles, listed in Template:Lists_of_years. The Philosophy article cluster may indeed be dormant, but imperfection is no reason to delete an article. Indeed, the AfD process specifies that imperfect articles should be improved, not deleted. --Noleander (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Having perused the 1972 page, I can tell you immediately that these are a really bad idea, in terms of having a function useful to anyone. No opinion on notability, although I will say that close attention to precedent should be paid. Carrite (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned with that p. too;--the only work that seems clearly important enough to be listed is the popper, and it's for a revised ed, not the first ed of the book. All the other years are I think better. What this project needs is attention. I'm willing to give it some, if one other person will commit to work with me on it. don't want to do it by myself, especially as I'm just an amateur in the subject. Any takers?

I posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Help_needed_at_AfD on the issue of revitalizing this topic. --Noleander (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All I don't see the problem with these lists. The format is common on WP and would be useful to someone studying the history of philosophy. Wolfview (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though with a heavy heart. The articles are not a good way to structure the information. Better would be a timeline of philosophy or the like. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was just a well intentioned bad idea. There is not any one single year which deserves it's own article, and the information is better presented as prose. Djohns21 (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concepts and people are what matter. Not the exact year, that is irrelevant. Szzuk (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does that apply to the list of years in science articles too? And what about history of philosophy? —Tom Morris (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy isn't a science and I used the word 'exact' to negate your second question. Szzuk (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are basically publication lists, and Wikipedia is not (only) a bibliography. Also, philosophy is not the sort of event-driven, linear subject that is best approached on a per-year basis. Sandstein 05:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are obvious limitations to sorting history by arbitrary chronological metrics, whether years or centuries, but these lists provide a solid and easily accessible foundation for further research. Since there is already a comprehensive index of these lists by topic, deleting a small sampling of "years in philosophy" falls into the old cliche of cutting off one's nose to spite the face. Sure, many of the lists are in bad shape and yes, an interactive graphical timeline would be ideal, but neither criticism warrants salting the earth. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and create 1776 in in philosophy - per Anetode - as yes, the years do matter. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in philosophy

List of years in philosophy

zproxy.org