- 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 keep. Consensus is that the subject itself is notable. Cleanup and/or stubification can be handled at the article itself as warranted. Aoidh ( talk) 00:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Philosophy of Freedom ( | 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)
Mishmash of WP:OR lacking WP:RS. Rudolf Steiner's books are not WP:RS and anthroposophic publications are not WP:RS. Rawls is WP:CITED, although probably Rawls never wrote anything about Steiner's works. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- The mention of Rawls concerns not Steiner but the definition on intuitionism. In sense of intuitionism other than Rawls', e.g. Moore's, Steinner may not be an intutionist. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 00:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Broader explanation: While a certain amount of MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR is allowed, this article is nothing else than MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR.
After 17 years, this article is not even wrong in terms of WP:PAGs. It is a collection of musings based upon Magister dixit rather than an article of a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia.
The article does not do Steiner a favor, on the contrary, it only shows how poorly received his magnum opus was. His ethics is valuable, so the poor reception is unfair, but that's the reality, and I'm not here to WP:RGW.
By "not even wrong" I mean: it could be bad stuff, it could be good stuff, but that is in no way assessable by the Wikipedians having a long track record. It's not transparent who is the authority judging Steiner's book. It seems that by and large Steiner is passing judgment upon his own book, or that some editors are citing him to that extent.
Steiner is cited copiously and the source Wilson is simply a translation of Steiner's book. The reference to Rawls is original research.
Also, the broad consensus at English Wikipedia is that Rudolf Steiner did not write WP:RS, and that, as a rule of thumb, anthroposophic publications are not WP:RS. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Stubify – Reduce the article to the bare facts about the book and its publication. As much as this article is a mess, the book is notable and this shouldn't have been taken to AFD over cleanup issues.
small jars
t c21:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)- While I don't deny that the book is notable, finding
WP:FRIND sources to validate its
WP:N is rather tricky. Professors of philosophy by and large ignored and still ignore the book.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
21:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Stubify and Keep. It may be tricky, but if you think it's notable you should put in the effort and not just seek its deletion.
- Apologies for these quick and dirty citations, but here you go:
- μκρκ, "Review of Die Philosophie Der Freiheit", The Monist, Vol. 5, 1895, p. 150. [1]
- Irons, David. "Review of Die Philosophie der Freiheit", The Philosophical Review, Vol. 4, No. 5 (Sep., 1895) pp. 573-574 [2]
- "Review of Die Philosophie der Freiheit", Mind, New Series, Vol. 4, No. 13 (Jan., 1895), p. 129-130. [3] (all three of the above are mainstream philosophy journals that still publish today)
- Förster, Eckart. Foreword to Rudolf Steiner Schriften - Kritische Ausgabe: Band 2: Philosophische Schriften, (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboo, 2016), pp. VII-XIIX. [4] (Förster is a professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins and a credible academic.)
- Hoffmann, David Marc. (March 15, 2016.) "Auf dem geheimnisvollen Weg nach innen." Neue Zürcher Zeitung [5](This is a mainstream credible Swiss newspaper.)
- Bach, Thomas [6]: Zum Zweiten Band der Kritischen Steiner Ausgabe – Philosophische Schriften, in: Der Blaue Reiter 39 (2017), 105.
- Jahaza ( talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- While I don't deny that the book is notable, finding
WP:FRIND sources to validate its
WP:N is rather tricky. Professors of philosophy by and large ignored and still ignore the book.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
21:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Rudolf Steiner Schriften, even if it purports to be "critical", is not a WP:FRIND source establishing WP:N. And I could WP:CITE Karl-Martin Dietz, but he does not write WP:FRIND either. People who are convinced that Steiner is a Great Initiate do not write WP:FRIND. They are believers of his new religious movement, thus not independent. Most professional philosophers knee-jerk refuse to read his writings, simply because of his reputation as a clairvoyant peddling occult ramblings. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator has agreed that the book is notable. Non-encyclopedic material can just be removed, no need for AfD. :3 F4U ( they/it) 00:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per agreement above that this is a notable topic. Notability is all that matters at AfD. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: while the keep votes above suggest nom has agreed on notability,
tgeorgescu's fairly confusing comment
While I don't deny that the book is notable, finding WP:FRIND sources to validate its WP:N is rather tricky.
seems to me to acknowledge notability in the colloquial sense, but keeps notability as in notedness in doubt. – small jarst c09:17, 28 March 2023 (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.
- 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 keep. Consensus is that the subject itself is notable. Cleanup and/or stubification can be handled at the article itself as warranted. Aoidh ( talk) 00:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The Philosophy of Freedom ( | 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)
Mishmash of WP:OR lacking WP:RS. Rudolf Steiner's books are not WP:RS and anthroposophic publications are not WP:RS. Rawls is WP:CITED, although probably Rawls never wrote anything about Steiner's works. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- The mention of Rawls concerns not Steiner but the definition on intuitionism. In sense of intuitionism other than Rawls', e.g. Moore's, Steinner may not be an intutionist. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 00:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Broader explanation: While a certain amount of MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR is allowed, this article is nothing else than MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR.
After 17 years, this article is not even wrong in terms of WP:PAGs. It is a collection of musings based upon Magister dixit rather than an article of a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia.
The article does not do Steiner a favor, on the contrary, it only shows how poorly received his magnum opus was. His ethics is valuable, so the poor reception is unfair, but that's the reality, and I'm not here to WP:RGW.
By "not even wrong" I mean: it could be bad stuff, it could be good stuff, but that is in no way assessable by the Wikipedians having a long track record. It's not transparent who is the authority judging Steiner's book. It seems that by and large Steiner is passing judgment upon his own book, or that some editors are citing him to that extent.
Steiner is cited copiously and the source Wilson is simply a translation of Steiner's book. The reference to Rawls is original research.
Also, the broad consensus at English Wikipedia is that Rudolf Steiner did not write WP:RS, and that, as a rule of thumb, anthroposophic publications are not WP:RS. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Stubify – Reduce the article to the bare facts about the book and its publication. As much as this article is a mess, the book is notable and this shouldn't have been taken to AFD over cleanup issues.
small jars
t c21:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)- While I don't deny that the book is notable, finding
WP:FRIND sources to validate its
WP:N is rather tricky. Professors of philosophy by and large ignored and still ignore the book.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
21:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Stubify and Keep. It may be tricky, but if you think it's notable you should put in the effort and not just seek its deletion.
- Apologies for these quick and dirty citations, but here you go:
- μκρκ, "Review of Die Philosophie Der Freiheit", The Monist, Vol. 5, 1895, p. 150. [1]
- Irons, David. "Review of Die Philosophie der Freiheit", The Philosophical Review, Vol. 4, No. 5 (Sep., 1895) pp. 573-574 [2]
- "Review of Die Philosophie der Freiheit", Mind, New Series, Vol. 4, No. 13 (Jan., 1895), p. 129-130. [3] (all three of the above are mainstream philosophy journals that still publish today)
- Förster, Eckart. Foreword to Rudolf Steiner Schriften - Kritische Ausgabe: Band 2: Philosophische Schriften, (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboo, 2016), pp. VII-XIIX. [4] (Förster is a professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins and a credible academic.)
- Hoffmann, David Marc. (March 15, 2016.) "Auf dem geheimnisvollen Weg nach innen." Neue Zürcher Zeitung [5](This is a mainstream credible Swiss newspaper.)
- Bach, Thomas [6]: Zum Zweiten Band der Kritischen Steiner Ausgabe – Philosophische Schriften, in: Der Blaue Reiter 39 (2017), 105.
- Jahaza ( talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- While I don't deny that the book is notable, finding
WP:FRIND sources to validate its
WP:N is rather tricky. Professors of philosophy by and large ignored and still ignore the book.
tgeorgescu (
talk)
21:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Rudolf Steiner Schriften, even if it purports to be "critical", is not a WP:FRIND source establishing WP:N. And I could WP:CITE Karl-Martin Dietz, but he does not write WP:FRIND either. People who are convinced that Steiner is a Great Initiate do not write WP:FRIND. They are believers of his new religious movement, thus not independent. Most professional philosophers knee-jerk refuse to read his writings, simply because of his reputation as a clairvoyant peddling occult ramblings. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator has agreed that the book is notable. Non-encyclopedic material can just be removed, no need for AfD. :3 F4U ( they/it) 00:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per agreement above that this is a notable topic. Notability is all that matters at AfD. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: while the keep votes above suggest nom has agreed on notability,
tgeorgescu's fairly confusing comment
While I don't deny that the book is notable, finding WP:FRIND sources to validate its WP:N is rather tricky.
seems to me to acknowledge notability in the colloquial sense, but keeps notability as in notedness in doubt. – small jarst c09:17, 28 March 2023 (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.