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 rationalism. There might be an article to be written on this subject, but absolutely nothing here qualifies as such. Issues of OR and SYN, but mainly just a confused mess of random vaguely relevant statements. Redirected until someone can write a good article on the subject (and you know what, I might have a go this weekend). Black Kite 10:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalist movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Neologism; few reliable source suggests that there is a systematic "rationalist" movement according to the article's definition, separete from secular humanism movement. It did say, however, it has nothing to do with the actual rationalist movement of modern philosophy (Descartes, Leibnitz, Spinoza). At the same time, it once contained a list putting Socrates, Malebranche and Einstein together as proponents of this "movement". Simply said, the article is OR and neologism, therefore it should be deleted. Wandering Courier (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, I do not agree with your reason for this nomination. I have added references to the article. It does have to do with the rationalist movement of modern philosophy (Descartes, Leibnitz, Spinoza)...at least according to Standford.Smallman12q (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Stanford encyclopaedia talks about continental rationalism, not this.

    To appreciate the confusion that underlies this article, one has to appreciate that User:Jon Awbrey had heavy involvement here, as well as in rationalism and rationalist movement, and editors have really made the ensuing mess worse rather than better. continental rationalism, which Awbrey had as a separate article (now to be seen here and in subsequent edits) has been history merged to rationalism, making it far less clear who wrote what and where.

    To see the dispute and the subsequent editing that spawned all of this confusion, I suggest that one reads Talk:Rationalism#Requested Move: Should Continental Rationalism be merged with the Rationalism article? before adding to the AFD discussion, and especially before muddying the waters further by conflating what editors intended this subject to be with continental rationalism. Such muddying is exactly what you have done with your edits to this article. Uncle G (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, this isn't exactly my field. Perhaps an expert should have a look.Smallman12q (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and start over again with a less misleading title. I am not sure whether there is any real connection between the use of the term in the 21st century and in the 18th, but at most it's a claim to an older origin of a modern movement. I don't know what the better title will be--I cannot from the references find anything consistent. Normally I would say keep and edit, but the present article is such a confusion that it would be better to start over. DGG (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete content and redirect to rationalism. No need to separate "rationalism" from a "movement" of "rationalists", whatever that may amount to in a given context, be it "continental rationalism", or the "reason" side of the faith vs. reason debate, or another of the many uses of "rationalis_" that one may encounter. Understanding that the various uses of "rationalist" and "rationalism" are all over the map, there's no need for this article. The three sources presently given aren't reliable sources. The article explains nothing that an article on rationalism shouldn't be able to summarize for readers (if indeed it's possible to do that effectively in any location at all). ... Kenosis (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's trying to make something out of a collection of misuses of the word "rationalist". Srnec (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild keep. This (the practice of explaining supernatural or miraculous events on a rational basis; OED def.1a, to The doctrine or belief that reason should be the only guiding principle in life, obviating the need for reliance on, or adherence to, any form of religious belief. - lb) is a different sense of the word than rationalism (The doctrine or theory that emphasizes the role of reason in knowledge, or claims that reason rather than sense experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge. Freq. contrasted with empiricism. OED 2a.), as the choice of Voltaire and Newton, as opposed to Leibnitz, should make clear. The example of Rationalist Press shows that it is an actually existing sense, but it may be that this can be merged elsewhere in the spectrum from atheism to anticlericalism; Freethought should work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The article certainly needs work, but it is far from being beyond improvement. The rationalism movement is an important part of the philosophical world and would be studied by anyone studying philosophy or philosophical history. To those who say the article should be deleted and started from scratch, there is nothing stopping you from deleting the main body text and re-writing it. In the mean time, the current article is still better than no article. Mojo-chan (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Rationalist movement" is indeed used to refer to this sort of popularized rationalism/secular humanism (search for "movement" here or here or here for example). And this sort of secular humanist rationalism is, at best, on the periphery of the traditional rationalism (ancient, modern, or continental) found in mainstream academic philosophy. So, "Rationalist movement" is a not OR, not a neologism, and it is manifestly a separate topic from the various sorts of academic (philosophical) rationalism. (PS: As a person with a PhD in real philosophy I intensely dislike this naive, lightweight "rationalist movement", but there's no denying that it is valid subject matter as an entry.) -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Sloane (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERNOM Machete97 (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking me to some stuff some guy once wrote.--Sloane (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SYN. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an issue that is useful in real life. Keep it and leave it as it is, adding it to a stub category for further expansion. Its sources show that this article is not WP:OR. Also per WikiPedant. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perhaps calling it Rationalist or Rationalism would've been better. A way of thinking, and list when it was used throughout history. Or only notable uses of it, which have been noted in history, are listed, so perhaps Rationalist movement is best. Dream Focus 02:20, 27 February 2009 (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.