Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pluralist school
- 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.
Pluralist school
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - car chasm (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Pluralist school (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)
The "pluralist school" never actually existed - the oxford handbook to presocratic philosophy notes on page 17 that those distinctions were incorrect. this page should be redirected to the relevant section on Pre-Socratic philosophy - car chasm (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. That it is argued that the Pluralist School never actually existed is just something to include in the article; it is not a rationale for removing the article. The fundamental issue is that it has prominently been said to exist, and this is the rationale for the article's existence.Teishin (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Unless I misunderstand the argument, the contention is that because the philosophers making up a school of thought that is today labeled the "pluralist school" didn't recognize the grouping or the label, it didn't exist, and therefore is a modern hoax. This is not a logical argument—by this rationale, there were no pre-Socratics, either. It is irrelevant whether a group is aware of the similarities that cause scholars to group them, or whether they would agree with it. Likewise, it doesn't matter if some scholars disagree with the grouping, as long as credible, verifiable sources contend that it's valid—and they don't have to represent a permanent or ongoing opinion, either. If 19th century scholars considered it a valid classification, but 21st century scholars have abandoned that view, it would still be the valid subject of an article, for the very practical reason that readers might encounter the concept and want to understand what it is. P Aculeius (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @P Aculeius: There's no reason that we need a whole article on that, though, right? If the page is redirected to a section of Pre-Socratic philosophy that explains which philosophers have been considered "pluralists" in various 19th century scholarship, and it's very much not a consistent or coherent group of philosophers (other than usually Empedocles), should it really merit its own whole article? - car chasm (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- That would be an argument for merging the articles, not for deleting this one—and the rationale would also be different from the one given for the proposed deletion. If, as the sources seem to indicate, there was such a school of thought, or at least some modern scholarship holds that there was, and this topic can be thoroughly covered in a related article where it seems to be a natural fit, then of course merging it into that article is an option. But that means making sure that all of the significant information—including the sources, unless they can be replaced by better ones—is added to the other article. Then this one can be turned into a redirect to that section. Note that other editors may disagree with the merger based on how well the subject fits, and this article could still be recreated in the future if it can be expanded beyond the prudent limits of that section. I also note that you don't need permission before attempting to merge articles. Perhaps you could go ahead and do that, then if nobody objects here after a reasonable time, change this article into a redirect to that section. P Aculeius (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's a good point, perhaps I need a self-WP:TROUT here. The section on pre-Socratic philosophy appears to be much longer, so I'm going to redirect to that for now and make a discussion on the talk page if anyone disagrees with the redirect. - car chasm (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- That would be an argument for merging the articles, not for deleting this one—and the rationale would also be different from the one given for the proposed deletion. If, as the sources seem to indicate, there was such a school of thought, or at least some modern scholarship holds that there was, and this topic can be thoroughly covered in a related article where it seems to be a natural fit, then of course merging it into that article is an option. But that means making sure that all of the significant information—including the sources, unless they can be replaced by better ones—is added to the other article. Then this one can be turned into a redirect to that section. Note that other editors may disagree with the merger based on how well the subject fits, and this article could still be recreated in the future if it can be expanded beyond the prudent limits of that section. I also note that you don't need permission before attempting to merge articles. Perhaps you could go ahead and do that, then if nobody objects here after a reasonable time, change this article into a redirect to that section. P Aculeius (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2022 (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.