Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtues (number and structure): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:50, 9 February 2018

Virtues (number and structure)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original essay. The title is useless as a redirect. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The nomination is absurd because our articles are supposed to be original essays. If they weren't original, they would be copyvio/plagiarism. If they weren't essays they would be criticised as DICDEF, NOTDIR or some other hand-waving objection to their format. The topic is notable and there's obviously considerable overlap with other similar pages including virtue; virtue ethics; virtue epistemology; Nine Noble Virtues; Seven virtues; Five Virtues; Cardinal virtues; &c. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for an extensive account of such topics. Andrew D. (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- our articles are supposed to be original essays. Hell no. Please read and thoroughly understand our rules WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Our article are supposed to be tertiary sources faithfully reporting published knowledge and in the accepted format too. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No hand-waving please. If you want to delete a good faith contribution like this, you need to explain the original or synthetic nature of the ideas presented and explain why this cannot be addressed by ordinary editing. Complaining that the article is in essay format is ridiculous. Per the OED, an essay is "A composition of moderate length on any particular subject, or branch of a subject" and that's what our articles are expected to be. Andrew D. (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- OK here is the very first sentence after the lede (which is bullshitting in its own): In Aristotle’s opinion, the different kinds of virtue arose from the nature of being itself: In order to know what a good man is, he said, we must firstly determine what man himself is.1, with ref #1 being Aristotle. Please explain how the first part (wikipedian's text) follows from Aristotle's utterance. In my opinion, wikipedia's text is baseless. I can give you more. We have quite a few articles on the subject already, blissfully unknown to the author of this essay. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Complaining that the article is in essay format is ridiculous -- not at all. Encyclopedia articles are in encyclopedic format, not in an essay format. Per the OED, an essay is -- Unfortunately Wikipedia has its own texhnical slang often wildly departing from OED. In Wikipedia, an essay is either WP:ESSAY when in the Wikipedia namespace or chaotic original research when in the article namespace. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. WP:ESSAY is irrelevant, being an internal rules concept, and WP:NOR doesn't use the word. What WP:NOR says instead is that statements "must be attributable to a reliable, published source". The author here is clearly attributing the statement to Aristotle. You might argue whether he is correctly summarising Aristotle's views but that's a matter of accurate translation and meaning. Addressing such issues is done by ordinary editing, not wholesale deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I see you're still violating WP:NOT in your AFD !votes. Do you know what "original essay" means? A thoroughly sourced scholarly paper on a noteworthy topic is not the same as an "essay". Also, it should be noted that Andrew posted this AFD at ARS here. I'm seriously considering proposing a new rule for ARS where posters to the rescue list are not allowed directly edit the AFD themselves (cast !votes, either before or after ARS) except to notify at the AFD that a message has been posted to ARS (which they would be required to do, with a diff). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This is an unfinished draft at best. The first 25 citations (an entire long section of the article) come exclusively from ancient Greek and early modern philosophical texts -- is this an original interpretation of such texts? What do modern Plato scholars think? This is the kind of article that would have passed muster (maybe even passed GA review) back in the bad old days but should not have passed page curation as late as 2015. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 ::::* Nonsense.  [[WP:ESSAY]] is irrelevant, being an internal rules concept, and [[WP:NOR]] doesn't use the word.  What [[WP:NOR]] says instead is that statements "must be attributable to a reliable, published source".  The author here is clearly attributing the statement to Aristotle.  You might argue whether he is correctly summarising Aristotle's views but that's a matter of accurate translation and meaning.  Addressing such issues is done by ordinary editing, not wholesale deletion. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 17:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 ::::::[[User:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]], I see you're still violating [[WP:NOT]] in your AFD !votes. Do you know what "original essay" means? A thoroughly sourced scholarly paper on a noteworthy topic is not the same as an "essay". Also, it should be noted that Andrew posted this AFD at ARS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_%E2%80%93_Rescue_list&diff=824811535&oldid=824793215 here]. I'm seriously considering proposing a new rule for ARS where posters to the rescue list are not allowed directly edit the AFD themselves (cast !votes, either before or after ARS) except to notify at the AFD that a message has been posted to ARS (which they would be required to do, with a diff). [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 22:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
+*'''Userfy''' This is an unfinished draft at best. The first 25 citations (an entire long section of the article) come exclusively from [[WP:PRIMARY|ancient Greek and early modern philosophical texts]] -- is this an original interpretation of such texts? What do modern Plato scholars think? This is the kind of article that would have passed muster (maybe even [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Titus/1|passed GA review]]) back in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Roe_auEG31k&t=820s the bad old days] but should not have passed page curation as late as 2015. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)