Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Stoicism


 * 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 move to Draft:Modern Stoicism. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Modern Stoicism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

original research, inventing a category for personal promotional use. no supporting third party sources Weathermandela (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. It exists, and I just read a blog about it recently somewhere online, but I'm not sure if it is notable yet. Bearian (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This reads like an essay on one person's views on Stoicism. There is contemporary Stoicism or current thinking on Stoicism, but I do not see evidence of a Modern Stoicism as a notable and separate school of thought. This seems little more (perhaps no more) than a vanity piece. At most, merge as a section in Stoicism. Jacknstock (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Not so fast. Massimo Pigliucci's substantial (4 paragraph) coverage of "The Modern Stoicism movement" in the article on Stoicism on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy demonstrates that the movement is significant. In turn, the IEP cites Viktor Frankl's logotherapy in Sahakian 1979, so the modern movement is now over 30 years old. For philosophy, the IEP article cites William Irvine 2008, John Sellars 2003, and Lawrence Becker 1997. For self-help, the IEP cites Donald Robertson 2013. This is certainly over the Notability threshold.


 * Becker, L.C. (1997) A New Stoicism. Princeton University Press.
 * Irvine, W.B. (2008) A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy. Oxford University Press.
 * Sahakian, W.S. (1979) "Logotherapy’s Place in Philosophy". In: Logotherapy in Action. J. Fabry, R. Bulka, and W.S. Sahakian (eds.), foreword by Viktor Frankl. Jason Aronson.
 * Sellars, J. (2003) The Art of Living: The Stoics on the Nature and Function of Philosophy. Ashgate.


 * The appropriate !vote is clearly Keep. I agree, of course, that the article is a mess of an essay, but that's a new editor's inexperience. The topic is notable, and AfD is not for cleanup. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If a specialist encyclopedia has a section on Contemporary Stoicism, do you think that would be appropriate for WP? That would be merge. Jacknstock (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Jacknstock: I haven't understood your comment (sincerely). Do you mean there is already an article on Contemporary Stoicism (there isn't one)? What is your intended merge target? If there is something suitable I will happily change my !vote. If you mean that where there is a main article, there must never be any subsidiary (child, grandchild) articles, then look at any major topic, say Second World War: if a sub-topic is notable, then it may have an article to itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am saying there is already an article on Stoicism. Any commentary on current or recent thought on Stoicism belongs in that article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Jack N. Stock: Thank you. That however is not a reason for deleting or even merging, as suitably large subtopics such as Modern Stoicism, about which whole books have been written, can be notable in themselves and can therefore have their own articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Please see my comments on the original page's Talk page. Not only is this distinction invented, it was created as an attempt at advertising by the user "Stoic Warrior". Reviewing the user's talk page you find that a page created by the user previously was deleted. That page was "Stoic Week", which if you Google, is an event created and hosted by the website "modernstoicism.com" Further, other edits done by "Stoic Warrior" include promotional and soapboxing edits to pages related to this one, which were reverted a few weeks ago. Weathermandela (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Weathermandela: thankyou, I just took a look, but I wouldn't say your original comments affect the current situation much. Firstly, notability is a matter of whether sources exist, not whether the article as it currently stands (still less, once stood) is well-written or well-cited. A topic can be notable when the article brought to AfD is totally uncited and full of advertising, the questions are not connected: though as it happens, the article lists many reliable sources. I have identified 5 reliable sources above, so the notability of the topic is established, and the article, if need be, could be totally rewritten from them, avoiding any trace of WP:OR, and not relying at all on websites such as modernstoicism.com. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue also remains that this is all original research. There isn't a single credible third party media outlet that has used the phrase "modern stoicism" or any trend piece on the issue. The article is thousands of words and all from books. There isn't anywhere else that make this distinction between types of stoicism. It is trying to make a trend where there isn't one. Weathermandela (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the article on Stoicism on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is certainly a "credible third party media outlet". Wikipedia has no prejudice against books, indeed policy favours the use of "secondary sources" such as books and review papers over primary research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is one small mention that doesn't even justify a subsection in that one article, which is on one obscure website. There aren't other articles that make the distinction. If this was an argument about a sentence or two on the main stoicism article, that might be one thing. A 5,000 word entry cannot hinge on one mention in one article from the entirety of the Internet. Weathermandela (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about what is in the article, we are talking about what could be there, given the reliable sources that exist out there in the world. The IEP is a good honest source, and far more of the article could and no doubt should be cited to sources of that quality. All AfD discussions should be about the sources available, not the sources used. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

*Keep Userfy or move to draft space. Google modern stoicism and there is definitely a conversation taking place in the media about this topic. Some examples: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/modern-day-stoicism/5896364, and http://www.forbes.com/sites/kareanderson/2012/09/28/five-reasons-why-stoicism-matters-today/#2b089a486b2b and https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/how-to-be-a-stoic/?_r=1. These discussions in Forbes, the New York Times and Australian media, etc, plus the books already cited, seem to indicate that the topic is notable. Yes, it does need rewriting, but there seems to be enough info on it to merit its own article, instead of trying to cram it all into the Stoicism article. ABF99 (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Having looked more closely at the article and its talk page, where the writer says he/she will bring it up to Wiki standards by late January, I'm changing my !vote to give him/her more time to improve it. ABF99 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My argument is that these articles are about Stoicism, not "modern Stoicism" as a distinctly separate philosophical school. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The book Becker, L.C. (1997) A New Stoicism and the serious discussion of modern Stoicism in the IEP article are certainly about the modern variety. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That there is a revival of Stoicism in the 21st century, and that differences are being discussed between the new and old versions in reliable sources, certainly warrants being included in an encyclopedia. I agree that this discussion could have been written into the original Stoicism article, but it wasn't.  We  have a potential article here that is well-researched but needs more time for development.  I have changed my !vote to userfy or move to draft space so it can be worked on outside of mainspace. ABF99 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)  Another article from a UK research center that discusses Modern Stoicism: https://emotionsblog.history.qmul.ac.uk/2015/11/the-big-messy-tent-of-modern-stoicism/.  ABF99 (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles mentioned above don't distinctly differentiate a new train of thought or "modern stoicism" that is different than "stoicism", they're merely talking about stoicism being used in modern times.Weathermandela (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Move to draft space. If there are sources there's no reason we can't have an article on modern Stoicism, just as we have Modern Paganism and neostoicism for the Renaissance movement.  The concerns on the talk page are valid though, so lets make this a draft so Stoic Warrior can address them. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2017 (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.