Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1700 in philosophy

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 merge to 1700s in philosophy or the equivalent (yes, I know that's a redlink at present). There is strong consensus here that a "[YEAR] in philosophy" article is untenable. Vanamonde (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1700 in philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and has no events substantial enough to warrant an article here. There haven't been any constructive edits to improve or build the article since 2013. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 20:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge and Redirect - I'm normally all for "X decade/year/century in Y topic" articles as they really help contextualize the timelines of certain fields, but really only if there's actually something to put in the articles. I feel like there might be a rationale for a 1700s in philosophy, but definitely not so specific in this case. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cymru.lass: There is something in the article, specifically the publication in 1700 of Mary Astell's, "Some Reflections Upon Marriage." [1]. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: yes, there is one thing. That's really not enough for a whole article. The topic would be better as a section in an article on the century as a whole in philosophy. One sentence fragment on a publication that does not even have an article and a template does not an article make. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The List of years in philosophy is organized by individual years rather than entire centuries. There are far too many things going on in philosophy to organize by an entire century. Organization by decade might be reasonable, but that would take a huge reorganization. Assuming the publication of the book is notable--I'm not sure it is--then for organizational purposes it should go in the individual year that is appropriate, and should not be excluded simply because nothing else happened in that year. If you feel that the publication is non-notable, we can check for sources on that. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to 17th century in philosophy ("Strict Usage") or 18th century in philosophy ("General Usage") or alternatively to a per-decade article.Keep Reorganize / Merge List of years in philosophy by century for all pre-1800, and by decade for 1800s -- There is an entry for that year, and it is relevant to philosophy. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 15:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC), 08:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)][reply]

Having studied philosophy, I find a shocking dearth of entries in List of years in philosophy for everything in the Middle Ages and Antiquity. This page gives the completely misleading impression that most important philosophy occurred after 1900. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about those dates. I suspect that you might be able to find enough material for yearly articles into the late nineteenth century, and decade articles into the late eighteenth. Or further. It all depends on the amount of publishing going on at the time, which is always increasing. The most obvious test would probably be the presence of contemporary philosophy periodicals. If you have those, you can likely have yearly articles for that period. I am not sure when they started, but these sources claim that the first in Britain was in 1876 [2] [3]. It may be advisable to show caution in merging later timelines, especially after 1876, as you might end up having to unmerge them later. James500 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: I defer to your knowledge of the subject. Sounds like you have even more experience with Philosophy than I do despite having taken numerous courses in it. Can you make a specific proposal? I will likely go along with it based on your comments here, if it sounds reasonable. I'm not clear on what exactly you want the final action to be. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my !vote based on recent changes to List of years in philosophy to which I approve. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no list containing a single item is worth having, all the more so when that item is a redlinked book. Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to merging to a decade- or century-long list as per below. Agricolae (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One entry does not make a notable list, support merging per decade or century if required. Ajf773 (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per WP:POKEMON, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R this page and any other similar stub pages for 16XX in philosophy should be combined into 17th century in philosophy, which is certainly notable: [4]. While we are at it, combine any other centuries in philosophy. We have just had this nonsense with several other centuries, let's not have it with this one. James500 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Every year before 1700 listed in List of years in philosophy, with the exception of 1649, has one or two events/births/deaths listed total and should definitely combined into their appropriate articles. Medieval philosophy, for example, already exists anyways. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 03:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosalina2427: Do you agree with me that something is amiss that the article List of years in philosophy gives a false impression that nearly all philosophy occurred after 1900? Perhaps, the title should be renamed, List of years in philosophy after _____ or List of years in Modern Philosophy. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed in terms of the false impression. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 22:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the corresponding articles for 1623, 1649 and 1658. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge probably 1700s in philosophy. We have been trying to abolish these minute categories, but they need merging not deletion. The problem here is that the article is a redlinked book supported by a link to the authoress. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but prefer 17th century in philosophy ("Strict Usage") or 18th century in philosophy ("General Usage") based on recent changes to List of years in philosophy and !vote following this one. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 15:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC), 08:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)][reply]

• Merge to 18th century in philosophy or alternatively to a per-decade article. The per-year organization is presently too sparse in terms of events.Icewhiz (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have changed my !vote accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 18th century began on 1 January 1701. This is because there is no year zero in the Gregorian calender which starts with 1AD. See eg [5] [6] [7]. Our own article 18th century follows this. James500 (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC) This is explained in more detail in Century. I am under the impression that all our century articles follow the convention that century X starts with year X01 not X00. James500 (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I wasn't aware of the two ways to classify year X00 in a Century or the bizarre mathematical nightmare of having no zero 0AD. I prefer "General Usage" affirmed by ISO_8601#Calendar_dates. However, since our articles on specific centuries (..., 17th century, 18th century, ...) follow the "Strict Usage", consistency suggests we follow the strict usage. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2018 (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.