Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empty idea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. I will make the content available to anyone who wants to work on adding some sources. W.marsh 13:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empty idea

Empty idea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced, seems like original research. Notability of the concept is debatable. This was tagged for speedy, but it is not nonsense -- I haevb no trouble understandign what it meansd. i just don't think it is very important or encyclopedic. DES (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete As per my nom. 19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Appears to be original research - no references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozgod (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep as this is a real term in metaphysics and philosophy at various levels. The idea of the idea, the need for an idea that isn't yet defined, or the imposition of a form where there was none. Sometimes empty notion. Used by Hegel, Nietzsche, shows up in the work of Rudolf Hermann Lotze and Max Stirner per our articles on them (text apparently was in the 1911 Britannica.) It may correspond with a distinction Hegel made between the German words ideale and ideelle.--Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If truw, the article should use {{1911}} or one of its varients to indicate the source. DES (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Per WP:OR. --Random Say it here! 23:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A well sourced article could be written about it, but this is pure OR. Someguy1221 00:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I feel honored by an assumption of some guys that the empty idea is my invention. Unfortunately it existed in epistemology long time before I had been born so I can't take the credit for inventing it as my OR. I'm surprised that gentlemen voting for deletion as my OR never heard about an empty idea. However, if it isn't OR, then the reason for deleting it should be different then OR shouldn't it.

It reminds me deleting other pages where consensus of editors (9 to 1, none of them a gravity physicist) accused me of inventing Einstein's theory of gravitation as my OR and deleted the whole series of pages as a result (on the basis that I was their author). It proves that non physicists prefer the Newtonian physics over Einsteinian. It might be seen as kind of touchy as far as the exact sciences are concerned. It might not cause any problems since no one in his right mind would go to Wikipedia for information on gravitation anyway but if such cultural ignorance of editors is spread also over humanistic subjects as epistemology it might become a problem also for Wikipedia. Jim 11:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    • comment It wasn't that I thought you had invented the concept, but that this particular definition of the concept looked like OR, or at least was uncited. (actually, many people do go to wikipedia for info on gravitation and the like, when the wish info on about the Scientific American level or a bit lower.) We also get lots of crackpost promoting their own private versions of physics, in fact I think that WP:NOR was originally created specifically to deal with crackpot physics. DES (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2007 (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.