The Father of Existentialism himself has a very nice Wikipedia piece indeed. I belive that this is a wonderful article in every way and very worthy of being a featured article. Cited sources, plenty of imagry, and highly informative. 72.15.175.12900:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd love to see Kierkegaard featured, and I'll be back when I've actually read the article, but, to be going on with, I'm afraid the incomplete references alone preclude its being featured right now. The last three items in the References section are quite unhelpful, with two of them being mystifying Wikipedia articles (which should be under "See also", except... no, not there either) and the third a collection of "Links to online resources" (you might as well list Google.com under References). Disregarding these items, then, remaining as references are "Alienation in Hegel and Marx" from the Dictionary of the History of Ideas, "Adorno’s Reception of Kierkegaard: 1929-1933", and a 5-page article "Kierkegaard, the Apophatic Theologian". These are all short non-print pieces, off-centre to the general topic of Kierkegaard, and the article can't possibly have been constructed on the basis of them. No way. I looked over the External links section also, to see if it would help to upgrade some of them into references, but, no, it wouldn't. (I assume the " Religion After 911" is a spam vandal addition? General cleanup of this section is needed, there are dead links, also.) Bishonen|talk05:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I repaired some of the links and reordered the links to have the more important web links listed first. I also made the Biography section part of the references, since I myself used Alex Dru's Journals and Hannay's biography to add some points to the article. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore06:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The biographies are fine, that helps, but References (=sources, works actually used for the article) must be kept separate from External links (=recommended online further reading), which can't be a sub-section under References. A link like for instance Online Library Catalog at St. Olaf College; select Kierkegaard Library from the menu to search for books and articles isn't a reference, not even close. The Reference section is for information about where specifically the facts in the article come from, to enable the reader to check that information in those sources (print or online). A library catalogue can only be an item under External links, or (better yet) Further reading, and then only if it's exceptionally useful and the reader can't find it easily via Google; by no stretch can it be an item under References. Also, I see that the mysterious Wikipedia articles that I complained about above remain under References, Kierkegaard, Wikipedia Reviews of Works and Kierkegaard, Primary Sources. As I said, they don't belong there. Wikipedia isn't a reference for itself. What are they anyway? Kierkegaard, Wikipedia Reviews of Works--note the very strange name--is a big redlink collection which I'm tempted to put on WP:AFD, but perhaps it's some kind of work in progress? It obviously needs moving, anyway, but to what? And is it really claimed that it has been used as a reference for Søren Kierkegaard? How...? Bishonen|talk11:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've now separated the links that are referenced in the article from the other "Further Reading" ones. As for those mysterious articles, I don't know what the original author intended for those, but I just made them subpages of Kierkegaard, until it can be integrated into the main article somehow. Reviews of Works looks like a Complete Works List while Primary Sources looks like a Bibliography. It's too bad that more of Kierkegaard's individual works aren't on Wikipedia. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore13:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see the discussion of his philosophy adequate to be FA quality, but for a long time now this article has been one of our sorest wounds. The discussions of his various works are spotty (some there, some not) and incomplete. I'm not supporting or opposing at this point, but I've been waiting for a long time, now, for an actual Kierkegaardian to come along and fill in the stuff, from Either/Or to Concluding Unscientific Postscript, charges of anti-rationalism becoming mysticism, charges of misogyny, the troubled relationship his philosophy has had with the various churches, the way his philosophy has prevailed despite official opposition, his place among other reactions to Hegel and Kant, etc. It's a big, big, big topic. Geogre13:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a big topic, but after seeing the tons of conflicts in Friedrich Nietzsche, I'm not so sure about adding everything into it; maybe just the basics for the encyclopedia. But I was planning to write a section on Kierkegaard's criticism on Hegel and on the Corsair Affair before I'd submit it for FA status. The anon beat me to it. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore13:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The edit history of User:72.15.175.129 shows that he/she has made a total of 9 edits, and this FAC was put up by that user on his/her fourth edit. This is not in itself a reason to object; the article must be judged on its own merits. But I would feel more comfortable about this FAC if someone did an IP lookup on one or more of the article's regular contributors and did a comparison. Thanks. Saravask 07:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC) No need. My mistake. Good luck to the nominator. Regards, Saravask03:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to AGF, Saravask. And we only do IP checks on suspicion of major wrongdoing. It's only of marginal interest whether or not 72.15.175.129 is a major contributor, but perhaps he/she would like to enlighten us? Bishonen|talk11:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. While the biographical portions of the article seem quite well written, the bulk of ==Important elements of Kierkegaard's philosophy== has a way to go before it even reads in an encyclopedic fashion (although I see it has improved some already since the FAC nomination). Specifically, it has a lot of first-person singular and plural references, and large paragraphs that lose track of the fact that this is all "according to Kierkegaard". Of course, just adding "Accoding to Kierkegaard" at the start of each sentence would leave a mess, too. I'll also note that there is at least one section where I can see a whole page of text onscreen without any links at all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Good points by Bunchofgrapes, Yorick, George. However: he article is accurate and describes the central tenets of Kierkegaard's philosophy/theology accurately. Everything on the page now is what a bystander would want to know (and more) about Kierkegaard. Issues of his relationship with churches and the stances of political institutions are secondary -- I agree that they can/should be added. Additional analysis with regards to Kant, Hegel, mysticism, and specific works like Either/Or and Concluding Unscientific Postscript, would risk dangerous and unagreed-upon academic grounds, and should NOT be added (or, if added, should speak carefully). The Nietzsche page, as stated, is a clear example of this danger; and a more in-depth analysis of Kierkegaard would prove controversial. I also don't find the first-person writing all that bad. It reflects Kierkegaard's own style and delivers the point well. So I think the accuracy of the article is fine. Just needs to be a bit more comprehensiveness with regards to Kierkegaard's impact on the world in which he lived: Denmark, the Church, etc. --i.h.
