Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Stoicism (2nd nomination)


 * 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. This debate suffered from multiple problems, not least the out-of-process removal of the AfD template on the article, even though the AfD was not closed. At this point there is no consensus for deletion, but given the weak nom and the other deficiencies in this debate, no prejudice to a re-nomination in the near future. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Modern Stoicism
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is using the name of a private organisation as it's title. modernstoicism.com the original author is a member of the Modern Stoicism Ltd Organisation and a former student of Lawrence Becker, who is cited as if to represent him as the intellectual founder of a new philosophy, with followers that adhere to his doctrines. This is false, there is no such consensus, Becker is not an influential author outside a small group of acquaintances. His writings are controversial within the Stoic community...

The general quality is poor...

While it is true that Albert Ellis referenced Stoicism in his Rational EMotive Behavioural Therapy, it is not at all foundational, and both REBT and CBT are psychotherapies, not ethical philosophies.

Viktor Frankl whos is referenced identified himself as an Existentialist. that he named his philosophy Logotherapy, is incidental.

The alleged "modern Stoicism movement" circulates around Modern Stoicism ltd. and they events they organise.

Of the people reference

Alasdair MacIntyre is an Aristotelian has not written on Stoicism other than briefly, and dismissively, in After Virtue. Martha Nussbaum is another critic of Stoicism, not an adherent. Lawrence Becker has been discussed, he is now deceased but none of these academics have ever been participants in any way in any movement.

Mouron Rouge (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The article as a whole is vague, misleading and uninformative and is pushing a very personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouron Rouge (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

= Edit =:

I saw this in the comments below: "promotional and soapboxing". This would describe this article very accurately.

Mouron Rouge (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion page was created without the afd2 template and was transcluded to the log for 14 November (which was when the nom originally tagged the article). I've added the template and "moved" the transclusion to the 22 November log.  I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time.  --Finngall talk  22:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently a wholly spurious collection of ad hominems without substance conflating a generic thing with some entity that uses it. Stoicism does in fact have a modern incarnation and Neostoicisim refers to something from the 18th century. The article is 6 years old and doesn't fit the various apparently unhinged complaints above. My intention is to redirect it to Contemporary Stoicism. Lycurgus (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Lycurgus (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep should say haven't examined closely, the prima facie situation is keep and investigate alleged advert. The various ad hominems to major relevant figures and the ground existential matter of contemporary version of virtually any major philosophy school of the past, e.g. Aristotelianism (if you will) which is quite common in right wing layers, spoke for themselves with the age of the article and apparent input. I'm not in a rush, don't know how long it will stay (re)listed but can wait a month or whatever. Lycurgus (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a consensus was reached, I went ahead and did the move and a superficial redact. The matter of the contested source "Becker" can proceed as a normal issue on the kept page.


 * Keep The poor quality does not contradict the importance of the page's existence. Perhaps, to address the most substantial of the claims against this page, it should be renamed to avoid conflation with the organization. 'Contemporary Stoicism' is advisable. 130.15.35.14 (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)RHug.
 * I formatted your vote and signed mine for ease of processing. Lycurgus (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep pending a coherent, policy-based argument for deletion. The current nomination reads like a WP:ATA list and it shouldn't the job of other editors to have to wade through and interpret it.  —  AjaxSmack  03:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:N there is no modern movement based on the writings of Lawrence Becker, there is no movement with any consensus around the principles set forth in the article, that is a complete fiction. This article is entirely devoted to portraying Lawrence Becker as a well known ideologue with a following, which is untrue. Becker is mentioned 19 times, whereas there are no references to the founders of the philosophy, nor any continuity with them. I suggest moving to 'Lawrence C. Becker' as this is the principle topic of the article.  Mouron Rouge (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Struck the "Delete" as a duplicate !vote--further comments are welcome, but your nomination is implicitly a delete !vote already. --Finngall talk  17:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support changing the name to Contemporary Stoicism and the revision/removal of the references to the "New Stoicism" of Lawrence Becker, which as pointed out below, has no consensus Mouron Rouge (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I think a name change to contemporary Stoicism eliminated confusion between the Modern Stoicism organization. contemporary or modern are adjectives not part of the proper name. I feel the section on the differences between modern and ancient Stoicism is very poor, based on one interpretation that very few who consider themselves part of the "modern/contemporary Stoicism" would agree with. Broadfootrj (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2021 (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.