Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual

Individual

[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)

Ugh, this is a mess that even if salvageable as a notable concept needs WP:TNT. The current article seems like part WP:ESSAY, part WP:OR, part a WP:DISAMBIG, it seems to rehash Person with the added sections on "this term can also means blah blah" which is a WP:DICTDEF. Ping User:LookingGlass who proposed deletion of it (on the talk page), few years back (see their rationale at Talk:Individual#DELETE with which I agree). This should be simplified either into a redirect to person, or a disambig with topics mentioned in see also such as Self, Philosophy of self, Psychology of self, and Religious views on the self. The short sections in law and biology seem to me beyond rescue as off topic/OR/DICTDEF/not encyclopedic style. The remainder of the article is about Philosophy of self, so there is some scope of merger, I guess, but again, much of what is here is unreferenfed, so.... perhaps cut and paste to that article's talk page on the off chance it would be useful to someone interested in that article, before redirecting/disambiguating this mess? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's the nomination that is a mess as it starts with WP:RUBBISH and supports this with an essay rather than policy. We then get a rambling spray of possibilities contrary to WP:NOTCLEANUP and these clearly demonstrate that there are sensible alternatives to deletion. This nomination shows no appreciation of the fact that this is one of Wikipedia's oldest articles, having been started by Larry Sanger in 2001. The trouble with this topic is obviously that it is a broad and philosophical one and so difficult to write well. And, as we are all individuals, the topic invites bike-shedding. But our editing policy is clear: "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." For an example of a well-written encyclopedic article on this topic, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is about a topic of Biological individual. Which may be notable. But our article is effectively an overgrown disambig. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Biological individuals are individuals and so that title is a redirect to the article in question. And the SEP article is just an example. There are plenty more such out there such as this discussion of the difference between the concepts of "person" and "individual". The topic is clearly notable and, because it is a broad one, different authors naturally approach it in different ways. This is not a reason to delete anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the concept of Individual is not the same as that of a (legal) Person. It is however one that is dealt with in a large number of books and journal articles, so its notability isn't in question. Individuality has aspects including biology, sociology, religion, and philosophy. There is clearly scope for improving the article, but (though this is not germane to the Afd) it wasn't all bad by any means. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination statement provides no rational basis for deletion or policy-based analysis. Yeah, the article is lousy right now. If you can't be bothered to improve it than just STFU if you have nothing policy-based to say. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indisputably notable. There's OR for sure, but we can fix that. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by User:Chiswick Chap, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and User:AleatoryPonderings. AFD not clean up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP AFD is not cleanup. The rambling deletion nomination is something you should've posted on the talk page, and made suggestions for how to improve the article, instead of wasting time coming here saying it should be TNT destroyed and then someone else should come along and rewrite it later on. The article is fine, others having explained this already so no reason to repeat their points. Dream Focus 12:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this ill-conceived nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. I WP:AGF; and suppose we all want to improve the encyclopedia; and that is a more constructive way to do it. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AfD is for non-notable subjects, WP:DINC. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic, the article being in sub par shape is not reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nobody has shown yet that there exist a single source on the topic of "individual" that can be used to satisfy GNG. The current article is an essay-ish, unreferenced mess and should be a disambig. Please note that WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an appopriate vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because no one is taking your ridiculous nomination seriously. Notice how when you nominate something and every single person is against you and you just keep arguing, such as here or [1] or [2]? Anyway, you could probably search for "individual" "biology" OR "Philosophy" OR "Law" if you thought it needed more references for anything. [3] Dream Focus 14:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This actually seems like a reasonable discussion of the various interpretations of what it means to be an individual, in both religion and biology. Per WP:BROADCONCEPT, "A term with many related meanings should be presented as an article on the broadest understanding of the term, rather than as a disambiguation page merely listing variations on that meaning." I don't see this as a simple DICDEF, it's an encyclopedic topic with lots of themes explored in reliable sources. — Amakuru (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would say it’s notable, I would keep as per comments above.-GizzyCatBella🍁 07:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Et tu, brutus? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is clear the consensus is to keep this. I am however not withdrawing the nom as nobody has presented a single source that suggests this should be anything more than a disambig for a number of related but not identical vews on what individual is (biologicial individual which needs to be written and others such self, Philosophy of self, Psychology of self, and Religious views on the self). We are doing a disservice to the reader by providing them with the ORish essay instead of TNTing this to hell and having a clear disambig here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I find the topic notable. Wm335td (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]