Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Projectivism

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. ✗plicit 13:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Projectivism[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article has entire sections without sources and has almost no sources overall. This article also does not have a neutral encyclopedic tone; it is written like a reflective essay rather than a Wikipedia article. Even if this topic is notable, there is little benefit to the information that is currently on the page. At best, this page should be draftified. aaronneallucas (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. aaronneallucas (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Projectivism as a subject is certainly notable, and many reliable sources on it exist in the world, which is the required condition for Notability. Nom has confused this with the state of the citations in the article, which was indeed not good: but that has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Nom is quite right to be concerned that the topic is notable, but wrong that the article provides little benefit to the reader: it introduces the subject simply and clearly, it provides helpful links to related Wikipedia articles, and it now also cites multiple reliable sources which explain the subject further. I've added some citations and adjusted the article's tags accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Chiswick Chap that this is a notable topic but the article needs improving. From the first page of Google Scholar alone I've found [1], [2], [3] & [4]. The article certainly needs work but I don't think we're in WP:TNT territory; we are more likely to have someone improve this page if it exists in mainspace for them to improve. This topic seems to contain some distinct but overlapping meanings, many of which derive from Hume's writing - I can see this being a valuable summary style article with various spinoffs to discuss various types of projectionism in more detail. WJ94 (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poor article so I sympathise with the nom, but the topic is notable; even the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a full article on it here: Projectivism. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2023 (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.