Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of suspicion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:18, 28 January 2012

School of suspicion

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

Article says, "School of suspicion is a famous term coined by philosopher Paul Ricoeur." My reason for deletion: WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no evidence that it is either a famous term or a term for a meaningful concept at all. Lom Konkreta (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that this is a notable or important term. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references clearly say that the expression is famous and use it as a canonical. A search in google books can provide mamy more sources. (Btw, the article has long been present in wikis in three other languages, and only recently the English wiki has catched up).--Sum (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of evidence that this is a famous, meaningful, notable and important concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed the point of the deletion rationale. The article isn't about a "concept" at all; as written, it's about the term "school of suspicion". So how is the alleged notability of the concept relevant? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way to fix that is to reword the article to make it about the concept rather than the term, as an encyclopedia article should be, not to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made that change in a few seconds by changing two words. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted you in even less time. Sorry, I don't see any evidence "school of suspicion" is a concept at all. It's a term. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at all of the books and scholarly articles that I linked to above. They treat this as a concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to look up 544 Google hits? Really? Did you, by any chance, look at all 544 of them and verify that they do indeed treat "school of suspicion" as a concept rather than a term? Pardon my skepticism. I did glance at one of them (the second hit), and it says "Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud have been called the masters of the school of suspicion." Again, that sounds like a term to me, I'm afraid. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Phil your "plenty of evidence" is 90% rephrasing of one and the same phrase about Marx, Nietzsche and Freud, and nothing to elaborate what exactly this school is. On the other hand, the phrase is indeed searchable, so why don't you and withMorons start with expanding the (miniscule) section about philosophical views of Paul Ricoeur? Lom Konkreta (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The world "famous" should be avoided per WP:PEACOCK. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 :::::You want me to look up 544 Google hits? Really? Did you, by any chance, look at all 544 of them and verify that they do indeed treat "school of suspicion" as a concept rather than a term? Pardon my skepticism. I did glance at one of them (the second hit), and it says "Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud have been called the masters of the school of suspicion." Again, that sounds like a term to me, I'm afraid. [[User:Polisher of Cobwebs|Polisher of Cobwebs]] ([[User talk:Polisher of Cobwebs|talk]]) 21:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 ::Sorry, Phil your "[http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22School%20of%20suspicion%22%20Marx%20Nietzsche%20Freud&num=100 plenty] of [http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22School+of+suspicion%22+Marx+Nietzsche+Freud&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5 evidence]" is 90% rephrasing of one and the same phrase about Marx, Nietzsche and Freud, and nothing to elaborate what exactly this school is. On the other hand, the phrase is indeed searchable, so why don't you and withMorons start with expanding the (miniscule) section about philosophical views of [[Paul Ricoeur]]?  [[User:Lom Konkreta|Lom Konkreta]] ([[User talk:Lom Konkreta|talk]]) 00:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
-*'''comment'''. It is clear that those (kids, apparently) proposing the deletion have no idea of what their talking about; neither about this topic or "continental philosophy" in general. The article has enough reference to meet wikipedia notability standards, and that's enough to end a fruitless polemic. If the boys want further "elaboration" to be educated on things they don't know, they should do their homeworks or waste their own time.--[[User:SummerWithMorons|Sum]] ([[User talk:SummerWithMorons|talk]]) 11:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 '''Comment''' The world "famous" should be avoided per [[WP:PEACOCK]]. --[[User:SupernovaExplosion|SupernovaExplosion]] ([[User talk:SupernovaExplosion|talk]]) 03:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
-:A "peacock" term can be kept if preceded by an "according to" or equivalent phrase attributing it to someone.--[[User:SummerWithMorons|Sum]] ([[User talk:SummerWithMorons|talk]]) 11:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)