Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of philosopher's philosophers

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)

[edit] List of philosopher's philosophers

I invite a philosopher to provide a rigid definition of philosopher's philosopher which is comprehensioble to an non-philosopher. Failing that - delete. -- RHaworth 2005 July 1 17:44 (UTC)

• I'd say a philosopher's philosopher is one who writes philosophy primarily for the consumption of other philosophers, as opposed to the general public. Since this describes most philosophers, delete. -- BD2412 ^talk July 1, 2005 17:54 (UTC)
• I'm afarid that I agree neither with the initial reason given for the VfD (the notion is perfectly clear, and the locution commonly used in many contexts – a musicians' musician, a comics' comic, etc. – with general understanding), nor with BD2412's comment (his definition is surely incorrect; a comics' comic isn't someone who tells jokes only for other comics, etc.). Nevertheless, I'm inclined to vote delete, as the list would be subjective, open-ended, and pointless. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 1 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)
  • Well, I was just making a stab at a more likely meaning, but I do think a "comic's comic" or a "musician's musician" would be a very different concept. I have heard similar language (economist's economist, for example) used to describe someone in an academic field who writes only for those versed in the terminology of the field. -- BD2412 ^talk July 1, 2005 20:52 (UTC)
• Delete Such a list would be inherently POV. Now, an article on standup philosphers might be useful! --Habap 1 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)
• Delete - inherently POV Cutler July 1, 2005 19:07 (UTC)
• Delete, too vague of a concept. It would be impossible to make an objective, encyclopedic list out of this. — Ливай | Ⓣ 1 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
• Delete. There isn't a single philosopher listed there. (Wait, there is a single philosopher listed, but that's it). Since the term "philosopher's philosopher" is already in Quine's article, there's no purpose for this article. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:41 (UTC)
• Delete inherently POV. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)
• Delete's delete. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:57 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.