Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Spirit

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 delete‎. Sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 01:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social Spirit

[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)

An essay full of WP:OR presenting a novel in non-encyclopedic and often unclear language. The sources don't validate "social spirit" as a unique concept in philosophy; instead, this essay appears to represent the author's own views. Given a lack of BEFORE references to "social spirit" in the context of this article I can't figure out a way to improve this that would allow it to stay. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Spirituality. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per SK1 as the nominator has given no coherent deletion rationale - the cited sources in the article that have "social spirit" in the title (i.e. Shablin, Smirnov, and Lazarev) clearly indicate that this meets WP:GNG as a notable topic. Probably it needs to be renamed "Social spirit" and any WP:OR/WP:SYNTH should be removed, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Psychastes (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not an essay because it is written based on reliable sources. Here we should also mention the “Handwörterbuch der Soziologie”, compiled by Götz Briefs, in 1931. The concept of “social spirit” was presented in that dictionary as known one. This also justifies the mention of him on Wikipedia, even from the point of view of the history of sociology. There were other works in German in the twentieth century, but due to the Second World War, research in this direction was complicated. This article appears to be an essay because there are no sources on this topic in English. But in general in science, this concept has its place. Russian articles contain abstracts about social spirit in English.Никитааа (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not just about sourcing. It’s a two-part test, and the second part is: “It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.” My (valid) deletion rationale was WP:ESSAY and WP:OR, which are both aspects of that policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 - given that you added a "globalize" tag to the article, does that mean you're conceding that this article meets WP:GNG? because if you believe there are other perspectives that should be included in the article that's not exactly compatible with deleting it. I'm also changing my vote to Speedy Keep as it's plain that no coherent deletion rationale has been given. Psychastes (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tag during New Page Review because it very much appears to have a narrow perspective on a concept covered elsewhere encyclopedically on Wikipedia. I absolutely do not concede that this means it meets GNG, see above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that “examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Russia” is untrue, or at least a misunderstanding. On the contrary, this article deals only with examples from ancient and European history and sociology. This article does not contain even a single example from Russian history precisely because the idea of a universal tripartite social structure is very rarely found in Russian sources. The editor of this tag is probably motivated not by objectivity, but by the "canceling of science". 95.10.7.132 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every single source that refers directly to "social spirit" is in Russian. The other sources in the article refer to other concepts like "geist" and "national spirit." That's why the article reflects a Russian perspective. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But still, the article does not contain a single EXAMPLE dealing with Russia. This is the untruth in the tag. Or is the problem that Eastern European authors are considering a Western European retrospective?

And one more question: if you admit that the article refers directly to reliable sources, why do you think that this is an essay? 88.250.24.46 (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Essays can refer to reliable sources. The problem isn't the sourcing, the problem is that this is pushing a particular intellectual theory in an unencyclopedic manner. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, not all of the authors of these sources are Russian. For example, Lazarev is Jewish by origin, but only Russian-speaking. And these are two big differences. So this is also not a completely correct statement about exclusively Russian perspectives in the article.Никитааа (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the tag says the "perspectives in this article deal primarily with Russia," not exclusively. And what could you possibly mean constructively by saying that Russian-speaking Jews can't represent a Russian perspective? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily, perspectives in this article deal with science. 176.220.242.60 (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I hope more editors will come, evaluate the article and sources and participate in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a poorly-translated version of Никитааа's (also-mediocre) ruwiki article, that doesn't understand English idiom well enough to claim that "social spirit" is a concept in English. Geist would be the only plausible redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is not a translation, but a text written by one author, and in one case it is in his native language, and in the other it is not. Secondly, Wikipedia is an international project and its rules do not limit the participation of foreign-language authors in writing articles. Thirdly, perfect articles in Wikipedia are usually created by collective efforts, in constructive collaboration. Fourthly, it is probably wrong to assume that the number of concepts in English has already reached its limit and there are no prospects for its development. 176.41.175.117 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. Whenever a page here relies on a single author, it is de facto original research, especially when it is written as an essay. Wikipedia has never published original research. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an essay or original research because it is written based on reliably sources. All Wikipedia articles begin with one person writing them, and only then do others take part. 88.250.24.46 (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2024 (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.