Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy

WP:DSPHILOSOPHYWP:DSPHILOSOPHY

WikiProject Philosophy

Deletion Discussions

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Philosophy. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:deletion sorting|Philosophy|sig=~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Philosophy. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Articles for deletion

Nescience

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the sources even use the word "nescience" and only online sources are WP:DICDEFs. Shocksingularity (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Science. Shocksingularity (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, badly-written, part-incomprehensible, and wandering off into very specific irrelevancies (it sources the distressing nature of autopsies, but doesn't source some very dubious etymology, which reeks of OR/Fringe stuff). I doubt there is enough sourcing for the concept to be notable (most hits are dictionary-definitions, with a few bloggy things on the side), but even were the concept notable, this article is globally too bad to keep. Elemimele (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete It's filled with POV and also the Wiktionary definition of nescience does not line up with this article's definition. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 11:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Rewrite -- This article requires a complete rewrite, that's for sure. That being said, the concept itself is in fact quite notable, with a long and curious history (see for instance here, here, here, and and especially here)--although you wouldn't know it from reading the current article! I'm going to see if I can WP:BEBOLD and redo this thing at some point, although it might mean reversion to more of a stub until it's filled out.

EDIT: My previous volunteering to rewrite was too hasty, and I'm not sure if I'll actually have the opportunity to do it within the week. If no one else will take that on, it might be worth simply deleting, as others have suggested, and waiting for someone to start it again from scratch, but you know, actually good next time. Yitz (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Yes, A restructure, perhaps with links to Cicero's ideas of truth in 5 levels and working with imperfect ideas of reality may be feasible, rather than delete? Timpo (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep: has sources for notability and can be improved. I have flagged it for cleanup so that it can be addressed in a copy editing marathon. Rublamb (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Is there anything in the current version worth saving? I'm happy to withdraw my objection to the subject as a whole being notable, based on Yitzilitt's sources, but if there is nothing in the current article that's appropriate, it should be deleted per TNT, with no prejudice to someone creating a good article. What I would object to is that we leave the current article in mainspace for the next 10 years in hopes someone fixes it. Elemimele (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete I had never heard of "nescience", and agree with Elemimele that the current article is incoherent. It would certainly not be rescued by a "copy editing marathon". I looked at "Legal implications", and got a 403 from EU on its mediation rules, possibly because I live in the wrong country. The SOED defines it as simply "absence of knowledge" or "ignorance"; it does look as though at least two of the books cited by Yitz use the term, but they are from the field of "Sociology of science", which for many of us is all we would want to know, thank you. So possibly the article might be replaced by a distinctly less incoherent one. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as an incoherent mess. I see nothing that can be salvaged, and no indication that this topic needs a page of its own rather than being covered in, say, Ignorance. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - The article is worthy of a WP:TNT. Article is patent nonsense, and very little references in the article explicitly mention "nescience". It is also filled to the brim with original research (WP:OR), something which is generally prohibited on Wikipedia. PicoMath (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Proposed Philosophy deletions

Refeudalization (via WP:PROD on 23 March 2025)

Candidates for speedy deletion

Categories for deletion

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Logic. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.