Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of philosophy component types

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of philosophy component types[edit]

Appears to be original research, or a eclectic personal list; few articles on the list actually exist.

Keep - It's a useful topics list. They are types of philosophical isms or positions. The sub-disciplines of philosophy. The articles don't exist yet, but the topics do. And the closest matches have been included. They will probably all have articles eventually, and these redlinks are convient to have in one place for this purpose because they can be clicked on to create these articles. I've blue-linked one more of them already. The Transhumanist 02:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The introduction to the list doesn't really make sense ("A component of philosophy (a distinct philosophy or component of a philosophy)" is like saying "A breed of dog (a distinct dog or breed of a dog)." It seems redundant and not meaningful). I think I understand what it's talking about, but glancing at Google results for "philosophy component" doesn't seem to find any non-Wikipedia sources for referring to it as such, just a lot of pages about course requirements for college degrees and the like. If the list offered more information about the listed items, I'd be more inclined to vote to keep, but as it is, it's basically just a list of phrases with no context (and I'm not a fan of the "see also [word without philosophical in front of it]" format for every item, since there's nothing to show why, for example, Philosophical school is a distinct concept from school). Propaniac 12:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This might have some utility as a "to-do" list, but in that case this might be better included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy than as an article in its ownself. The list itself may need further work; for example, I'm not sure that any sort of clear or meaningful distinction can be drawn between a philosophical school and a philosophical movement. In the eventuality that worthy articles come to be written under these redlinks, perhaps the best place for a list like this would be to include it in Template:Philosophy topics. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above. The definition suggested by this article is confusing and self-referential as mentioned by Propaniac. It is unclear what the point of this list is. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Philosophy is a big area. Take a look at Category:Philosophy to get an idea of how big it is. But this is a small, somewhat eccentric list by one user. If it is a to-do list, it would have no place in either Template:Philosophy topics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy. Perhaps the only place for it would be on The Transhumanist's user page. There is no obvious rational for this list. Banno 20:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is nothing more than a list of articles that might be written in the near future, as the color shows. There's nothing intelligent or deep about this so-called philosophy discussion. Opening soon, a philosophical McDonald's at this site. Mandsford 02:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete a list of possible topics or definitions, but it could never be an article.DGG (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete 'philosophy component type' is not a recognised or useful category. No one is going to search for it or know what might be in it when they see it. Anarchia 11:53, 18 July 2007 (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.