Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of Immanuel Kant's schemata

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 redirect‎ to Critique of the Kantian philosophy. Viable ATD. History remains should consensus emerge for a merge. Star Mississippi 11:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of Immanuel Kant's schemata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly quotes, based on a single secondary source (Kelly's Kant's Philosophy as Rectified by Schopenhauer). Used to be even more essay-like than now, but still seems so. Has had an original research tag for a few months and I tend to agree. Not seeing anything obviously worth salvaging or a clear merge target. JohnmgKing (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• SUPPORT DELETION: Aside from being about 85% direct quotes, I do not believe this article meets Wikipedia's threshold eligibility requirements. Its only secondary source is a book from 1909 by an author who does not have a PhD. If there is anything important here that is not included at Critique_of_the_Kantian_philosophy#Schemata, it could be added as a bullet to that outline/article. The argument, however, already seems to be covered there just as well in much less space (albeit with zero supporting citations of any kind). Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Appears to be a WP:POVFORK from Critique of the Kantian philosophy, and there is simply no way that I can come up with an excuse to pass WP:GNG 1 or 2 on this one. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect into Critique of the Kantian philosophy as an alternative to deletion. I'm not a philosopher, but it does seem like this article does duplicate the scope of the other article (mentioned above), and the title does seem like a reasonably plausible search term. Duckmather (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your input @Duckmather. I'm not particularly experienced with redirects, is this really a plausible search term? I suppose obscure redirects wouldn't generally do much harm anyway. If I may ask, what content would you want to potentially merge into Critique of the Kantian philosophy?. That article has a bunch of issues, and content from this page being pasted there would not improve it, as far as I can see. It's mainly a mix of OR and lengthy quotations. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.