Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergent 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 delete. --Coredesat 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emergent philosophy

Emergent philosophy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is not a real concept. It looks like someone's personal thoughts, or at least the thoguhts of a small group of people. Also the philosophies which are linked to from the article are not real either. If I use Google to look for it I only get about 500 results, of which most are for all those fake Wikipeda sites you get nowadays, which are probably just copied from here. Please delete this page. Wikipedia should not have articles about things which are not properly documented in the scholarly literature. Thank you. TechnoLuddite 08:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - seems like a non-notable neologism - 1410 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 08:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced pubphilosophycruft. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per above --Neigel von Teighen 12:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR, as are at least half of the examples linked to. Pete.Hurd 15:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR. ReverendG 23:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. It should be noted that this is this article's second AFD, the prior being back in 2004 and visible on the article's talk page. I voted on that discussion; my vote is again the same, that it's legitimate as a concept, and the page may have usefulness as such, but in itself only an emergent neologism. Since the concept itself is useful, is there any other more valid name for it? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Netural. This should just be a catagory page. There will never be enough "meat" to make a real article. However, I am suspicious of the motives of the person that nominated this for deletion. To wit, their statement: Also the philosophies which are linked to from the article are not real either. I'm tired of people trying to sneak through deletions of long-established and well-sourced articles - this is the beginning of another such attempt, I'm afraid. Mjk2357 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm troubled about this as well... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced. Also, we're not in the business of predicting the future or documenting original research. WMMartin 17:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "minor philosophies" would be a more appropriate category. You're right, "emerging" does say something about the future. I don't think Objectivism is ever going to "emerge" more than it has now, for example. Mjk2357 19:32, 28 November 2006 (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.