Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affective piety


 * 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The result was   Keep, withdrawn by nominator. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Affective_piety
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original Research: Hi! I wrote this article all by myself as an experiment, and it has not had any content edited by others. I did not know that it was about to be published, or I would have deleted it before that...because I really (for professional, job search reasons) need to publish it in a peer-review journal. It does contain sections of original opinions and at least one reference to my own scholarly work. Please consider letting me have it back!MAE (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Speedy was declined despite no other significant contributions. I believe those editors erred in disallowing the PROD and speedy.  We should let him withdraw this if he wants to.   Gigs (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G7. I see no compelling reason not to accede to this request, nor anything about the article history that invalidates a G7 speedy. Or, if for some reason G7 is deemed inadequate, an IAR speedy on the principle of "do no harm" given the nature of the request. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any amelioratory benefit of deletion earlier in this article's process has been foreclosed on by the passage of time. And on it's merits, I'll agree with the other editors that retention is the only realistic stance remaining. Striking my initial suggestion; it's time (if there ever was one), has passed and we have what we have. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - G7 is a convenience to avoid unnecessary deletion discussions, not a right to withdraw the "irrevocable" CC-BY-SA license. Even if the page is deleted, absolutely anyone can use the text for any purpose if they find it on a mirror site (for example).  It is also well within the administrator's right to decline a G7 on a notable topic.  I haven't really investigated the article at this time, so I'm not expressing any opinion other than that this should be evaluated on merits not simply the author's request.  Pinging the users who were involved at AfC:, and those who declined deletion:  for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * fixing ping: --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I declined the G7 as there were IPs adding a considerable amount of content. This could easily be the author logged out, but I had no right to assume that. That aside, there's a lot of well-sourced content here. I haven't read into it too much but my gut instinct is that it may be worth keeping. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with When I reviewewed the submission I saw plenty in it to make it a reasonable promote out of draft space. Page was in draft mode for nearly 6 months (and thereby potentially subject to CSD:G13) but a helpful editor  noticed it and saw potential so they put it forward for AFC review.  Because the template had the original 8-13-2013 "submission date" it shot straight to the top of the Category:AfC_submissions_by_age/Very_old list because it was more than 4 weeks "pending".  I reviewed it and there was no reason to not keep it from mainspace.  It's been my understanding that CSD:G7 applies if there are no other editors besides the creator who have contributed (even if it's fixing problems), As such CSD:G7 is invalid. Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are all reasonable actions when each is considered in isolation. Thank you providing rationale. Gigs (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The work does not seem especially original as it summarises the work of other scholars who are cited and quoted. The publication of this version here has happened now and cannot be undone.  The nominator is free to have this work republished elsewhere but should not attempt to claim back exclusive first publication rights as this would be a serious breach of professional ethics — see Why You Should not Submit Your Work to More than One Journal at a Time — "Editors take this so seriously that they may ban authors from submitting to their journal if they have broken the rules."  For further details, see our article about the issue — duplicate publication.  Note that, even if this version were to be deleted, this would not necessarily affect all the many services which routinely take copies of Wikipedia articles and store them in their caches and databases.  This might include services which specifically look for work being plagiarised from Wikipedia and so you really don't want to go there.  This discussion is now a matter of public record and, the more fuss that is made, the more likely that the Streisand effect will grow.   It would be more prudent to accept that publication has happened and make a virtue of it.  Perhaps it might be put forward as a featured article, for example — a rare distinction which is a significant accolade here. Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: It would have been one thing if this was a page that only recently got started, but this page is nearly a few years old and even showed up on the stale AFC work (CSD:G13) page so at this time entertaining a "I was working on a draft" is not really valid. I don't really see any other reasons to delete this as the author released the contributions under the CC licence irrevocably the subject is very well cited and referenced, and is probably well on it's way to being a "Good Article" or "Featured Article". Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete since I didn't actually do a bolded vote before. Yes, the CC license is not automatically revocable.  Yes, the author erred by starting a draft here if he intended to submit it to journals.  But we need to consider the facts here:
 * He didn't submit this for AfC evaluation, someone else did that on his behalf.
 * He may not have realized that prior publication would be an obstacle to journal submission.
 * He may not have realized that drafts here are considered contributions that we can just take upon ourselves to publish, even without him submitting it for AfC evaluation.
 * I believe it's safe to assume the IP editor was just the main contributor, not signed in.
 * The topic is one of very niche interest, as can be seen by its orphan status. The phrase "affective piety" only occurs in one other article on the whole encyclopedia, piety.
 * Notability is only well established because of the author's careful research and work. It is ironic that his own careful work would be used against him.
 * Had he not forgotten to log in a few times, it would clearly qualify for speedy deletion.
 * We don't need to "punish" this guy to make a point about open content licenses. It's not going to set a precedent or anything, it's an unusual situation.  There is no general right to withdraw content, and this won't create one.
 * Maybe the biggest thing by far: This editor is clearly capable of writing high quality content on Wikipedia.  Driving him off by being inflexible on this request would be a huge mistake.   Gigs (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unfortunately, in terms of journal submission, it's too late. StAnselm (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, hard to put the cat back into the bag.  If the author can accept that this deletion won't really help him because of mirrors, then maybe we can end this on more amicable terms than a "forced keep". Gigs (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)  BTW if mm2cat is female forgive my pronouns of convenience Gigs (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As others have pointed out, the work is already "out there" and deleting the page isn't going to change that. Most of the mirror sites do not delete pages just because Wikipedia does, and indeed there are several that ONLY host material deleted by Wikipedia.  If you submit this to a journal, and they do a web search, they are going to know it was previously published on Wikipedia regardless of what happens in this discussion.  In light of that, would you like to withdraw this request or proceed anyway?  --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep By our usual standards, this is a well written and remarkably clear summary of an important topic, with approbate references to excellent sources, and no indication of being impermissible SYNTHESIS -- rather, suitably encyclopedic summary.  The author intend to submit it to a peer-reviewed journal, and though this is not one of my special fields where i would be qualified to act a a reviewer, I see no reason why it would not be published. Having been published in Wikipedia is not incompatible with that. I suppose the authors problems is that given our free licensing, fewer journals are likely to accept it. But our licensing is irrevocable, and the author cannot have been unaware of it. Since it has already been released as free content, it will remain free content whether it is removed here or not. As Gigs and StAnselm correctly point out, there is nothing that can be done to change this. In my experience, the best way around this is to either find a journals whig will accept it despite the licensing, or to write an alternative but similar article and refer to this as a preliminary working version. Most publishers will accept this, as long as they can asset t copyright on the new version (even though all they might early have is copyright over the changes).   DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all of you for this careful and illuminating discussion. But special thanks to the person who pointed out that I might not be a man--which I am not--tant pis! ;) I can see that I need to withdraw the request for deletion. Giving the article "Special" status would be great! And I can start spending some time making links from relevant pages back to this article--which I can keep improving! MAE (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- If someone posted this to WP without the author's consent that is a breach of copyright. If the author has himself posted it on WP, he has no one but himself to blame for shooting himself in the foot, hindering his wish to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, for few journals will accept work that has already been published elsewhere.  I suspect that even a rewrite would be accepted, since the ideas would already have eben published.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.