Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vital materialism
Vital materialism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete
There is a philosophy of Vital Materialism, but this isn't it. William Garrity O'Connell is a 23-year old student at St Thomas's University. Neither he, nor his philosophy of Vital Materialism is referenced anywhere on the internet (at least that I can find). This version of William Garrity O'Connell's page gives the game away. Mpntod 23:06, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity and non-notable. If there is a valid, well-known philosophy by this name, I would recommend writing an article about that and including it on the page about Materialism. Google search on "William O'Connell" "st. thomas" gives only 102 results, and for "William Garrity O'Connell", only one result. --Idont Havaname 23:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Don't Delete. The above user, Mpntod, is confusing Vital Materialism with Vitalist Materialism, and is therefore wrong. Just because something can't be found on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I suppose one should become a user of wikipedia along with five friends and outvote the above two, or create a thousand web pages that outline what vital materialism is. I suppose that can be arranged, but no one will ever be able to explain just why the two users above feel so strongly the need to have vital materialism deleted from wikipedia.
(Above is from the article's author User:66.41.51.58
- oooh, "fallacious in his animadversion"! That sort of vocabulary must wow them at the Student Lounge, Mr. O'Connell. Delete. --Calton 01:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Original research, at least -- which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. As for this hylozoism...eh. I'll stick with David Hume. Geogre 01:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I should also say that hylozoism misses the point completly, you smart-aleck. If I were you I would graduate to the 20th century--at least--in my philosophical outlook.
- I see no advantages to the 20th century. I don't like the teleological assumptions necessary for "progress" in history. Geogre 04:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The bold contribution above ("I should also say . . . my philosophical outlook") was added by the article's author, User:66.41.51.58, at 02:09 on 30 November. Hoary 03:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) PS he/she has since removed the bold tagging, as well as making changes within other people's signed comments. (Take a look at the history of this page.) Hoary 06:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable and vanity. Incidentally, our friend User:66.41.51.58 might get demerit points for having deleted the puny content of his/her page, and then, when it was reverted, deleting it again. Hoary 03:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete:DCEdwards1966 04:34, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Haha, delete. --Fastfission 06:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research (or more likely original nonsense...) jni 06:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Disturbed by threat to abuse VfD by article author. Not notable. --Improv 07:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Someone's personal theory. --Gene s 09:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and let's keep the personal stuff to a minimum and please do not bite the newcomers I agree with User:66.41.51.58 that "Just because something can't be found on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist." (Indeed, my kitchen, for example, cannot be found on the internet, but does – I assure you – exist.) But, 66.41.51.58, you should realize that the standard for pages in Wikipedia is notability, not simply existence. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a repository for original research; we're not the publication of first instance. Hence, we would expect that even a notable-but-fairly-obscure philosophy would garner attention and mention elsewhere on the web before getting an article here. Chris vLS 17:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Let me second your sentiments. My own quip was meant to be flip rather than hostile. We need knowledgeable folks with solid backgrounds in Philosophy, and in particular Analytic Philosophy and beyond. Our coverage of Greek Phil. is pretty good, and we get spotty to the 19th c. (The Kierkegaard article is still a disgrace.) Then we just have contributors with extremely narrow, if not private, axes to grind. I hope the contributor sticks around. This is not a place for original research, so one's own philosophy is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, but we could sure use the expertise. Geogre 03:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for your consideration. Wikipedia is a great tool, and I shall abide by the rules of notability. The matter rests. 66.41.51.58
- No problem, and welcome! Hope to see you around soon. Chris vLS 18:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. and delete the William Garrity O'Connell page too.--Regebro 11:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.