Talk:17th century in philosophy

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2018. The result of the discussion was merge.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Years Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Modern Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Modern philosophy

The contents of the 1649 in philosophy page were merged into 17th century in philosophy on 4 October 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

@Spinningspark: there was very strong consensus to merge 1700 in philosophy to 17th century in philosophy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1700 in philosophy, so please don't try to revive that article unilaterally. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The case for merge was largely that the page had only one item (and one only dubiously related to philosophy in my opinion). That is not the case with the page I have produced. It fits very nicely with other "years in philosophy" articles. Or are you making an argument against "xxxx in philosophy" pages in general? SpinningSpark 12:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily in general, but per consensus here at least. The close of that discussion by Vanamonde93 explicitly says "There is strong consensus here that a '[YEAR] in philosophy' article is untenable." You shouldn't ignore a one-day-old strong consensus. Instead, talk to the admin if you think your version should be considered. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this thanks to the ping. I'm not an expert on philosophy, but in addition to what I said at my close, I'd ask the following question; what purpose is served by this page that 1700s in philosophy could not serve? Vanamonde (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous to take an AfD close as a general editing decision. First of all, AfD is not about editing policy, that should be discussed elsewhere. Secondly, as I said above, the page under discussion was terrible. If I had been at that AfD, and all I had to go on was the page as it was, I would have voted for outright deletion, never mind merge. Note that I have not actually undone the merge, it still stands, nor did I reuse any of the material from it, such as it was. So please, let's stop with the fruitless discussion of process and concentrate on the merits of the page I produced. SpinningSpark 22:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There was no consensus that an article for a year in philosophy is untenable. That was just Vanamonde93's misinterpretation of the discussion. Most of the participants were saying things like "a single entry is not enough for a list". The actual consensus was that the year 1700 in philosophy could not be assumed to merit an article in the absence of evidence that there was sufficient coverage/material to justify a WP:SPINOUT. Spinningspark has supplied that evidence. The more I look at this, the more it becomes obvious that we will need to WP:SPINOUT material from these century articles sooner or later. There is no reason in principle why we can't have decade articles either, and the decades do have some coverage: [1] [2] etc. Likewise I have already found entire chapters of books devoted to half-centuries as early as the fifteenth. There may be more. For that matter, just look at the number of entire books devoted to 17th century philosophy. Do you really imagine we are going to be able to fit all that in one article? Not likely. Spinningspark should be allowed to attempt to expand these articles without having his efforts WP:DEMOLISHed. James500 (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Vanamonde93, was your close in error or are we heading to WP:DRV? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The close was not in error. That is not the point. With the information available at the time, that close was fine. The point is, with the information available now, the close would likely have been very different. At the very least, continually harping back to the AfD is not a constructive way to come to a resolution here. SpinningSpark 17:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • My close was not in error. The close was made on the basis of the information presented at the AfD. This consensus can change if new information is presented (it doesn't have to change, though). I'm not going to get involved in evaluating this new information. Vanamonde (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article 1623 in philosophy has just been closed as keep. It was nominated for deletion with an identical rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1700 in philosophy and was expanded by me in a similar way, but before the AfD closed. There is thus no support at AfD for not having individual year articles as a matter of principle. Of course, there could still be community support for not having individual years, but I'm not seeing consensus for that from the discussion here or at AfD. SpinningSpark 16:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]