Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoic virtues

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 draftify‎. JBW (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stoic virtues[edit]

[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)

Fork of Stoicism that was originally a huge Copyright Violation and is now an essay. Original author has reverted Draftify so here we are. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. It was never a fork of stoicism. 2. It is not an essay but paraphrased parts of articles written by several PHD holders in philosophy, you are more then welcome to check the sources in the references tab. I and more people need to infact add direct citations for the articles from the sources given, but that takes time and you are welcome to help here. User:Exemplo347 Aboutzero (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the User:Exemplo347 decision to contest this page for deletion is I believe done out of spite, which I believe is frowned upon on the wikipeida community. The reason I am saying this is because Exemplo contested this page for deletion only after I reverted his move of the page to draft. Why not open a discussion for deletion from the get-go, why did you he only do it after I reverted his (rather unjust) move to draft of the stoic virtues article? Aboutzero (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stoicism#Ethics until the draft is more substantial - It's a notable topic in stoicism, and likely merits a whole article, much like Stoic logic. Perhaps Stoic ethics as a whole should be recreated first, though. - car chasm (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In under ten minutes I found six scholarly sources covering this topic and added them to the article. @Aboutzero: I'd recommend copying the article as you originally had it to your user space and expanding it by quite a bit, with inline citations attributing the claims you make to the sources you're consulting. The style here could use some work but nothing here seems particularly outlandish or wrong at a glance, it's just not written in an encyclopedic tone. You might want to use the WP:AFC process as well once you have a longer article. - car chasm (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your help and I agree with your comment. As I am quite new to wikipedia I hope you don't mind me asking a quick questions:

- What do you mean by Redirect to Stoicism#Ethics and how would one go about doing it?

Thank you once again and I will proceed with your recommendation! Aboutzero (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirect#How_to_make_a_redirect should tell you everything you need to know about making one. Doing this will send anyone who clicks a link to "Stoic virtues" to the section on the Stoicism page for ethics. This is a way of preserving the links to the article and allowing them to function correctly when your article is actually published, rather than deleting the page and re-creating it. - car chasm (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support redirecting this and I'd withdraw this AfD. Can I first be reassured that redirecting won't just end with the author recreating the article over the redirect. Multiple editors have attempted to give the creator space to work on the article as a draft, resulting in the existence of the article and a draft article on the same subject. An Admin (maybe @Bearcat: who was dealing with this issue) will need to combine the edit histories of both. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can always watchlist the page if you're worried that it will be un-redirected before it's actually written. - car chasm (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[User:car chasm]] [User:Exemplo347]]

I have added the redirect.

The reason I was against this page getting turned into a draft is because I need more people to help me write it, if its a draft, no one sees it unless they are specifically looking for it. Or so I believe. Since so many people were unhappy with me paraphrasing information from extremely reputable sources such as stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and internet encyclopedia of philosophy, and those people decided to deem this page as "written like an opinion essay", I have decided to scratch it all and rewrite it again using direct citations. But I will need help on that probably, so that's why I would like other people to see this page. Right not I think this page does not warrant any tags or Afd. Aboutzero (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editors (neither of whom were me, despite what you said earlier) who turned your article into a Draft were trying to give you time & space to work on the article before it gets published. The Articles for Creation process means that experienced authors look over a draft article and provide helpful input. By ignoring that, you've brought us here. If your article is turned back into a draft, you would get help from people experienced in writing Wikipedia articles and it would be a positive collaborative process. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.

Is it still possible to proceed with that?

Aboutzero (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we'll need to wait for an Administrator to do it because they will need to merge the edit history of the draft with the article you created. It'll probably take a few days so be patient. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Temperance, prudence, courage and justice... huh? Aren't these the same as the four Aristotelian virtues? jp×g 17:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be referring to the cardinal virtues which originate from Plato, but yeah, the stoics took these four basic concepts from Plato and adapted them to their own purposes, creating subdivisions of each of them and corresponding vices. A lot of our records of the Stoics' beliefs are from later Platonists like Plutarch who were criticizing them for it. This sourcebook has some further discussion of how they adapted them, probably helpful for writing the article as well. - car chasm (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. jp×g 08:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or redirect for the time being, until it is possible for a better article to be written. It seems to me that the topic is notable and can be written about, but what we have is not really suitanle as a mainspace article. jp×g 08:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can convince the article creator to accept a Redirect or Draftify, I'd withdraw this nomination. It'll need an Administrator to carry out the Redirect or Draftify though, to merge the edit history with Draft:Stoic virtues. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2023 (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.