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 redirect to Transhumanism. Even some of the "keep" !votes are only lukewarm about this article (I'm surprised nobody brought up WP:TNT). As it has been mentioned that some content may be wort while merging to Transhumanism, I leave the content accessible in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of transhumanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

as mentioned in previous notes [of concern], which have since been deleted, this page is unnecessary and extremely biased. It acts merely as an advertisement for a fringe community, and exists to give that community apparent authority. The links and general direction of this page are biased, with nothing directing to critiques of the ideology of transhumanism. Though apparently cited well, this page and many linking to it are self referential, and merely act as a way to give certain named individuals apparent authority. The main page for transhumanism is far and above enough of a reference on wikipedia 0bvious (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The nominator should note that deletion is not clean-up, and should strike the parts of their rationale that asserts such. Curbon7 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The nomination referred to the page as an advertisement. That is simply not true. Meanwhile, the nominator presented zero evidence backing up their claims, including that the "page is unnecessary and extremely biased". The outline, as a WP content navigation aid, is a collection of the subject's article links with descriptions excerpted from those articles -- which is about as neutral as you can get. At the time the outline was created, it was as comprehensive a collection of links to the subject's articles on WP that the author(s) could muster. Any deficiency in topic coverage due to new article creation would show a need for updating the outline rather than deleting it. That being said, there are 4 main reasons to keep this outline (and all other outlines in WP's system of outlines):
  
  1) A WP outline is the equivalent of a subject table of contents. There is enough material on WP about transhumanism to fill a book. It's common knowledge that the information in a book is easier to access when that book has a table of contents. The outline system is the table of contents for Wikipedia, and the Outline of transhumanism serves as the table of contents for that particular subject on Wikipedia.
  
  2) Each WP outline is an example of a tree structure, useful for depicting the hierarchical relationship of topics within a subject, to more easily see the conceptual structure of its content, such as what subtopics fall under each topic.
  
  3) Outlines are lists, which are faster, and therefore more convenient, to browse than prose articles.
  
  4) Each outline is part of one of Wikipedia's content navigation subsystems, with the system of outlines presented at Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines, while the main contents link resides on the menu sidebar which appears on every page of Wikipedia. Go there to see how the outlines fit in to the overall contents system.
  
  Deleting any of the outlines would create a hole in the topic coverage of Wikipedia's outline-based navigation system. Therefore, please leave the outline system fully intact. Thank you. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What isn't already covered in transhumanism is TV Tropes-level fancruft. Having an outline doesn't actually help with navigation when that outline tends to the indiscriminate, and we already have a decent enough prose article that functions better. XOR'easter (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Outlines are a valid form of structure for browsing and navigation. WP:CLN therefore applies. The worst case would be merger to the main article per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE and so deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Proposal that this Outline is unnecessary and biased still stands. If the Transhumanist editors of Wikipedia wish to work together to produce material pertaining to the many critiques of the ideology, then perhaps they could be included in this Outline and address some of the imbalance here. Topics of much more historical and cultural significance have been given far less attention than this topic. The editors involved in producing and promoting this page and others connected to the transhumanist ideology are a small and outspoken group, adept at bending the rules of wikipedia to make their ideology seem significant. Until the larger question as to the need for so much material pertaining to Transhumanism has been addressed, this Outline should be removed or put in stasis. A significant community level conversation should be had about many of the individual articles linked in this outline. Just because a large number of articles have been associated with a particular topic title (i.e. transhumanism) does not justify the inclusion of an Outline page, as Outline pages suggest a particular authority and significance, which is not at all justified for transhumanism.user:0bvious — Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs serious improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcpearce (talk • contribs) 10:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This needs more attention from neutral editors of wikipedia. Comments posted here already by several major contributors to transhumanist entries. If argument of bias is to be countered then attention to who is arguing is possibly of importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.205.58.146 (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag with {{{POV}}} and {{{Cleanup}}}. I originally leaned towards delete , however according to WP:CLN there is no reason one topic shouldn't have a category, outline, and navbox if it warrants it. The article needs serious improvement. Firstly, it is almost at half the length of the main transhumanism article which indicates it is overlyinclusive and indiscriminate to the point of losing usefulness. Secondly, if this is to be used as a navigational aid of the topic of transhumanism it needs to include debates and critiques of the ideology - as the main article does. Therefore although i am for keeping the article it should be tagged for cleanup and neutrality. Vanteloop (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Xoreaster. The Transhumanism article renders this one moot. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I must point out that the the main proponent of transhumanism on Wikipedia (to the extent that they have chosen "The Transhumanist" as a userid) also happens to be the main proponent of outlines. Make of that what you will. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Much of the above is a bit weird, but the actual reason for deletion is failure of WP:N. Articles of any sort, even those titled "outline", must be about notable topics, and I see no indicationt that the topic "outline of transhumanism" (as opposed to transhumanism itself) has been covered in depth in reliable sources. Sandstein 19:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Boiling it all down, it looks to be, effectively, a POV fork of Transhumanism. I see no reason for there to be two articles on substantially the same subject matter. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Initially I was leaning towards Keep, thinking that it was useful for navigation page for the various articles related to transhumanism. But the comments here have convinced me that the overarching factor here is that it boils down to being a WP:FORK of Transhumanism. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I confess to having a vague sense of disquiet as to the purpose of this article - it is sufficiently verbose that it loses many of the advantages of outline style that justify the separate article in the first place. Compare Outline of Japan or even Outline of Buddhism. Further, I agree with concern of the writers above me would cite forking concerns. I diverge, though, at feeling that any of these points require deletion at this time. I don't understand the notability concern because the underlying subject is notable, and other concerns can be managed with normal editing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:00, 14 November 2021 (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.