Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy

WikiProject Philosophy Deletion Discussions

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Philosophy. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Philosophy|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Philosophy. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy/archive

watch

Articles for deletion

Nash Jocic

Nash Jocic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, fascinating as a bodybuilding philosopher is. — Moriwen (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Bodybuilding, and England. — Moriwen (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: All sources are unreliable and self published. there's no significant coverage about the subject and the article itself lacks structure. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Delete per Cameremote. KOLANO12 3 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Democrates

For a concise explanation of the case for deletion of this article, see User:Twozenhauer's response to User:Liz below.

Democrates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I humbly submit that this article may safely be either taken down, merged, or changed to a redirect. Its principal claim to notability, I believe, is the occasional misattribution of Democritus’s sayings or likeness to one Democrates.

With regard to the former, according to our article on Democritus, Diels and Kranz attribute these sayings to Democritus, and this article repeats this attribution. As for the likeness, it can hardly be denied that the bust in the picture is stamped “Democrates,” and, indeed, the Wedgwood Museum’s website seems to list the very piece here under that name; that Museum’s website is hardly informative. Now, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a similar piece also stamped “Democrates” but clearly catalogued as “Democritus.” Did someone at the Wedgwood company repeatedly make the same mistake? This hardly seems unlikely to me, but what say my fellow editors?

I do confess that the likeness is unlike some of those we have for Democritus, as that in the Villa of the Papyri, but it is hardly unlike his representation in numerous other portraits. Indeed, the painting by Coypel, loath as we may be to accept the authenticity of so modern a vision, seems based on an old tradition; a cursory search will, I believe, at worst, reveal to anyone conflicting traditions of his appearance with, nonetheless, a bias towards that seen in the Wedgwood bust. A worker at the company might have repeatedly made the mistake of labeling the likeness "Democrates", but did Coypel, who predates it, mistake with "Démocrite"? And many other artists in the tradition of the “laughing” or “smiling philosopher”?

That he was the founder of the basic concepts of democracy is obvious nonsense. (Among other considerations, were he a contemporary of Apollonius of Tyana, he would have lived centuries after the heyday of Athenian democracy!)

Mind you, Democrates is not an invalid Greek name. There is Democrates of Aphidna, and it is also attested to in, e.g., this article about Euripides, this work of the theologian Sepulveda, and, as I gather, a genus of beetles. Indeed, Livy apparently states that a Democrates led the Tarentines at the Battle of Sapriportis, but, although the name on that article links to the page about the supposed philosopher, their biographies could hardly agree. Furthermore, the name appears on the list of Druze prophets on this page, but I can find no citations to that effect. (This last, in particular, might make me suspect a hoax, though I make no such formal accusation here!)

Even if the Democrates article gave dates significantly after the laughing philosopher, they would not account for the difference in dates between the Tarentine commander and the Druze prophet, and, even if they did, they would not account for the article’s lack of biographical detail, unless a military command and posthumous religious veneration do not qualify as notable!

But, forgive me: I understand that those links need not really enter into the argument; they were, no doubt, added in good faith, or, at least, the one from the Tarentine commander to the supposed philosopher was.

Also, regarding biographical detail, the noted epistle of Apollonius seems to me suspect as a citation, for, as we have said, Democrates is a genuine Greek name, and the mere existence of an Apollonian contemporary by that name hardly justifies the rest of the article. (Also, in fact, it is epistle 96, not 88, but that may be beside the point!)

What harm would be done by noting more fully the occasional attributions to Democrates on Democritus’s article and changing Democrates’s to a redirect to Democritus? Or perhaps a disambiguation page could disambiguate things: a link to Democrates of Ephidna, a link to Sepulveda, a link to and a note on Democritus, and a note about the military commander. Pleased to take further part in the debate but better able to leave the question to more sage considerations than my own, I am sincerely yours, Twozenhauer (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, History, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  What about the Golden Sentences/ Golden Maxims of Democrates? This seems to be attributed to him even if nothing else is? I think the disputed historicity is clearly displayed in the article, so as it stands I am happy to keep, maybe with more commentary on historicity?Spiralwidget (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Reply to Spiralwidget: Thank you for your consideration of this matter! But even considering the Golden Sentences, I am in favor of one of the options I have mentioned above. Near as I can tell, the article’s best quality is its statement that “many scholars argue that these maxims all originate from an original collection of sayings of Democritus”; granted, as the article goes on to say, “others believe that there was a different little-known Democrates whose name became confused with the much better-known Democritus.”

But with regard to the former statement, I refer my fellow editors also to this article by a scholar named Searby, which I quote here:

“The two most important sources for the ethical fragments of Democritus are Stobaeus' Anthology and the so-called ‘golden maxims of Democrates’ (a much discussed misnomer). Through a careful comparison, [the scholar Gerlach] confirms Lortzing's conclusion that Stobaeus utilized a collection of Democritus' maxims nearly identical with the pseudo-Democrates collection, which, for [Gerlach], has the methodological consequence of making Stobaeus an indirect witness to that tradition, complicated by the thematic rearrangement in the Stobaean anthology.” (emphasis mine)

But, truth be told, I have not found a tremendous amount of discussion per se; scholars seem by-and-large in agreement about “pseudo-Democrates”. Another confident attribution of the sayings to Democritus is this somewhat older piece by M. L. West.

I do not have access to the Democrates article’s cited The Atomists, Leucippus and Democritus (though it is mentioned in the Searby review cited above), but, in the article’s defense, I could advance this notice from 1925, which seems to present the attribution of Democrates to Democritus as somewhat new; but, even if I did so, I would have, at best, to advance merger of the Democrates article with that of Democrates of Aphidna: the noted dissertation by Philippson is a refutation of one Laue’s dissertation from 1921, in which the latter scholar, according to this contemporary report, advanced Democrates of Aphidna as the author of the sayings, which were apparently already widely attributed to Democritus. The report speaks of the same Philippson paper thus:

“Philippson is led to discuss the authenticity, character, and transmission of the ethical precepts of Democritus in reviewing H. Laue's dissertation . . . Laue's main contention is that the collection of precepts bearing the name of Democrates is not to be ascribed to Democritus, but to the Attic orator of that name from Aphidna. On this basis Laue tries to distinguish the style and content of the Democrates maxims from what he considers to be the genuine sayings of Democritus. Philippson points out that thirty-one precepts of the Democrates collection appear also in Stobaeus, and probably more were contained in the lost eclogues. Therefore the testimony of the Stobaeus MSS., which show the frequent occurrence of Democrates for Democritus, although the latter predominates, makes it highly probable that the author of the sayings in the above collection was Democritus. Moreover Lortzing has shown that Stobaeus obtained his Democritus precepts from the same source from which the Democrates collection was derived . . . . “ (emphases mine)

So, I submit that note of the conflicting attributions might be made on the articles for both Democritus and Democrates of Aphidna; Democrates as we have it may, I believe, be deleted or changed to a redirect, but hardly stand as it is: at very least, he is not the only Democrates, and his article’s title should not suggest that he is the standout holder of that name!

This is more by way of a postscript: Is it not also curious that the note at the beginning of the article calls him a first-century philosopher? His supposed correspondence with Apollonius would place him then, but the article goes on to say that his Ionic dialect is evidence of composition at “a very early period”; but then his possible contemporaneity with Julius Caesar seems to bring him closer to the first-century (but B. C.!) date. But this could be fixed even were the article retained. Twozenhauer (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• User:Twozenhauer, can you cut down your deletion rationale for this article to two short paragraphs and "hat" the rest of your comments in case anyone wants to read them? Because I don't anticipate any editors with the patience to wade through your entire statements here. Please be concise in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• • User:Liz, Certainly; thank you for your interest! Pardon my prolixity and my ignorance of “hats”; will the note I have placed suffice? §Scholars seem generally in agreement that the works of the supposed Democrates are in fact to be attributed to the well-known Democritus. Confusion of the names was not uncommon long ago, nor has it abated. The article as written relies upon a very few scraps of biographical detail, some conflicting and all doubtful, including its basic premise that Democrates is the author of the Golden Sayings or Sentences. Indeed, even those who question Democritus’s well-evidenced and widely-accepted authorship have only this premise on which to build a biography of a man who probably did not exist as such. The lone ready exception is a scholar who gives authorship of the Sayings to Democrates of Aphidna, who has an article with us. §I submit that the article on "Democrates" be deleted or changed to a disambiguation page: Pseudo-Democrates, the scholarly moniker by which the uncertain author of the Sayings is sometimes called, could be among the bullets; Democritus, too, with Democrates noted as a probable misspelling; Democrates of Aphidna could make another. On the articles for the latter two, a note about possible authorship of the Sayings could easily be slipped in. Twozenhauer (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. While the historicity of Democrates and authorship of his Golden Sayings are the subject of debate, that alone makes this a valid topic for coverage on Wikipedia. While some scholars attribute this work to Democritus, or to a different Democrates, others evidently do not. A sentence from the original article on which this one was based says that the identification of Democrates with Democritus is a mistake resulting from confusion between similar names. Is it? Wikipedia can cover the debate, but shouldn't be taking sides. Even if Democrates could be convincingly shown to be a phantom—which this article certainly does not do—the long discussion over whether he existed would still be worthy of coverage, and presumably under this title, since it would be a significant digression for a single work of Democritus. P Aculeius (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. I'm considering giving out barnstars to any experienced editors willing to assess all of the commentary here. Thank you!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

And thank you! Now, by way of replying to User:P Aculeius:

Thank you for your comment, and thank you especially for finding the link to Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. But I quite agree that the topic deserves to be covered here, and I believe your points about attribution are significantly addressed above. I do see your point about digression, though I still believe the controversy should be briefly addressed on Democritus and Democrates of Aphidna, perhaps with one or two of the citations above, e.g. from West or Searby, &c., as well as Smith. Also, the venerable source whose link you have fixed actually lists the orator from Aphidna first under his name! So, would I be wrong to persist in arguing that this Democrates, at least, should not be the bearer of an article simply so titled? Twozenhauer (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The DGRBM lists all persons named Democrates together, but on Wikipedia article titling works a little differently. Where there is "natural disambiguation", there is no need to decide which of two or three articles is the "primary topic". While we could make "Democrates" a disambiguation page pointing to this Democrates, Democrates of Aphidna, other Democratetes who don't have articles, and persons with similar names (the various persons named Democritus being the obvious examples), the normal title to do so under would be "Democrates (disambiguation)". Leaving this Democrates and Democrates of Aphidna the only obvious targets for "Democrates". And between the two of them, a pair of hatnotes would be simpler. I think that this article should be left here, with a hatnote leading to Democrates of Aphidna and perhaps also a disambiguation page along the lines I just mentioned. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Logic. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Philosophy|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Logic. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy/archive

watch

Logic