Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic 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. Fram (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synthetic philosophy

Synthetic philosophy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable philosophy, seemingly taken from one website; no mention in reliable sources independent of the subject. скоморохъ 11:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —скоморохъ 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; OR. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, without prejudice. This article seems to be about someone's personal project, and is referenced entirely to one website. An article under this title might be plausible. Google Scholar reports 1,140 hits on the phrase, a fairly substantial number. A lot of those seem to have to do with Herbert Spencer and his system, whose major publications were part of a grand scheme he called A System of Synthetic Philosophy. Redirection to Herbert Spencer#The System of Synthetic Philosophy is one option. If someone wants to write a real article about what makes Spencer's philosophy synthetic, and what other sorts of philosophy is aimed at synthesis, there may be a plausible article for this title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, it is true that Herbert Spencer did develop something he called synthetic philosophy. He dedicated much of his life to it and published his findings in a series of books: A System of Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, Principles of Biology, Principles of Sociology and Principles of Ethics. His project was very broad in scope and contains much that is of interest, but it would be hard to show that it was philosophically successful. It didn’t deliver any kind of philosophical resolution, it didn’t have much of an impact on the wider philosophical community, and it isn’t included on many of today’s philosophy syllabuses. It proved a philosophical dead end. Arguably this is because the components needed to construct a satisfactory philosophical synthesis weren’t available in his time, after all he was working in the 19th century environment of pre-Einsteinian physics, pre-genetics biology and pre-Wittgensteinian conceptions of philosophy. Perhaps there should be a disambiguation page with Synthetic philosophy (Herbert Spencer) and Synthetic philosophy (contemporary).
• Synthetic philosophy does seem to be both innovative and scholarly. Perhaps it does provide the viable alternative to analytic philosophy that it says it does. If this is the case, then it is definitely notable and Wikipedia would be doing its users a disservice if it deleted the page. I recommend not deleting it, and perhaps adding a disambiguation page and an article on Herbert Spencer’s synthetic philosophy or a link to Herbert Spencer#The System of Synthetic Philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.38.118 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 00:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Pure original research, and largely here, apparently, as a way to propagate links to and publicize a single web site. Kill it with fire. Nandesuka (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2008 (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.