Talk:Stemma codicum of Aristotle's Metaphysics

This page was proposed for deletion by Carchasm (talk · contribs) on 22 January 2023.

Philosophy: Literature / Metaphysics / Ancient Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Metaphysics
	Ancient philosophy

Insufficient justification for deletion

This article is clearly not covered by WP:Indiscriminate. Indeed it is not about the content of Aristotle's Metaphysics. It shouldn't be: It's about the stemma codicum :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this makes no attempt to present a clear or concise summary of anything related to the manuscripts of Aristotle's metaphysics. If it had, it would likely be deleted per WP:NOTCATALOG.

- car chasm (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be more clear, the entire article is about a debate over one branch of the stemma. This is not a notable debate by itself. The article doesn't contain a Stemma Codicum, and it wouldn't be appropriate content for wikipedia if it did. If there are no objections, I will redirect this to Metaphysics (Aristotle), which is where any discussions of the Stemma would take place. :) - car chasm (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the criteria for notability are not very strict: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject with "significant" being defined as "non-trivial". Yes, this is a boring technical issue one might consider of little interest. But that is irrelevant. If the subject has been addressed by scholarly secondary sources, you're supposed to let it be. Nothing is gained by removing the content but the vain satisfaction of one's predilection for tidiness.--MWAK (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but I do have a predilection for tidiness. So I'm asking explicitly now - do you object to me redirecting the article to Metaphysics (Aristotle) and reducing the content to about a paragraph or so? - car chasm (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do.--MWAK (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to share that objection? - car chasm (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've already shared it. With you :o). But, if needs be, we could engage in a formal deletion procedure.--MWAK (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]