Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thought of Thomas Aquinas (2nd nomination)

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 Thomas Aquinas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thought of Thomas Aquinas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

I have removed the WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and unsourced material from this article. This was much needed. However, as pointed out already back in 2007, the article "Thought of Thomas Aquinas" 's subject is vague.

There exist pages like Hegelianism, or encyclopedic formats like Hegel's Social and Political Philosophy. A summary of a thinker's philosophy is usually in a section of their biography article, e.g. Arthur Schopenhauer#Philosophy. However, this WP article seem to have been little more than a blog for the WP user A E Francis' very personnal erratic reflexion on and random interests in such and such aspects discussed by Aquina. Why present usury? Why social justice? Very few secondary sources are used, so it looks like those aspects are personnal choices.
Therefore, this article should be either deleted, or turned into a redirect to Thomism. Veverve (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to Redirect Agree with nom. Would go further and say that the whole article is SYNTH, inasmuch that the notion of a comprehensive "thought" from Aquinas isn't presented in the sources and when it is, it's in the context of Thomism, which we already have an article for. Some of the ideas mentioned here might have enough coverage to merit their own articles, but that's some splitting we can do by reaching into the article history post-deletion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and redirect) to Thomas Aquinas. This appears to have been the consensus of the previous deletion discussion although it was not implemented and was closed as Keep. Merger to Thomism is very much not appropriate as Thomism is the school of Thomas Aquinas and the topic "Thought of Thomas Aquinas" is about his views, not the views of the school. --Jahaza (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thomas Aquinas, as the bulk of that article is already about his thought. I also agree with Jahaza that Thomism is not the appropriate target here, because Thomism is about the school that grew from his thought. Jdcompguy (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer delete to merge, or at least make it a non-redirecting merge, since typing in the current title is unlikely in itself. George Huntley (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, preferably to Thomism, which is largely about his philosophy and theology. The bio-article Thomas Aquinas is largely a bio, with a section on his philosophy at the end, with Thomism as it main article. That article ends with a section on modern reactions to it, but that does not make it an inappropriate merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a merge to Thomism (which is the argument that describes his school of philosophy/theology). But also there is a distinction to be made between the greater philosophy of Thomism and thoughts that are particular to Aquinas (something like... Political and religious views of Thomas Aquinas might be a legitimately distinct topic from the concept of Thomism itself). I'm not sure that the two are entirely redundant to one another, nor that an article at this title is necessarily non-notable. My reasoning for a merge is simply that the current article is better covered in the context of the current Thomism article than in a standalone one. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thomas Aquinas preferably or Thomism alternatively. Thparkth (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thomism, due to WP:OR and WP:FORK issues. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Thomas Aquinas. Bruxton (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Looks like a Merge is happening although editors are split whether it should be with Thomism or Thomas Aquinas. I see related content in both articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm still looking for opinions on what merge target is preferable here. Do I need to ping all participants?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Thomas Aquinas. I agree with Jahaza's assessment of the suitability of Thomism as a target. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Thomas Aquinas. I agree with Veverve on the reasons for deleting the article. Regarding the target of the merge, I agree with Jahaza... no doubt Thomas Aquinas is dominant within Thomism, but the article Thomism makes clear that the school continued to develop in various directions and so extends significantly beyond him. So it is better to place the content of this article within the biographical article, and some content could later also be copied from there to Thomism as appropriate. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2022 (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.