Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argument from beauty


 * 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. GRBerry 03:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Argument from beauty

 * — (View AfD)

Fails on grounds of Original research, and neutral point of view. I see no evidence of anything called the "Argument from Beauty" which merits an encyclopaedia entry. All I see is one person indulging in some philosophical musing and trying to justify a particular stance on the (super)natural world. Where is the evidence that the "Argument from Beauty" is a concept that has occurred in the literature, or is a phrase widely used as a justification for belief in a god? Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a primary one. This looks more like blog-material than an encyclopaedia entry. Snalwibma 22:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not bad as an essay or a version of the teleological argument, but definitely OR.  Should we merge this AfD with Argument from love? Tevildo 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep How is this even remotely OR? It merely summarizes the points of a common variant of the teleological argument.  I can only assume the original nominator isn't familiar with philosophy.  See http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/godother.html for a good non-Wiki article on the subject.  I agree that the article could use a good source for the outline of the argument, but one shouldn't be too hard to come up with. Tarinth 23:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - in reply to Tarinth - It is original research in the sense that it is an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" (see definition at WP:OR). The advancing of a position means that it also falls foul of WP:NPOV. Snalwibma 09:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure there's a POV issue, but there is a lack of philosophical criticism on the argument. I added a section for that, which could probably be enhanced by other editors over time. Tarinth 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this. It's just another fork of the creation-evolution ocntroversy.  We have more than enough of that shit already. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This has nothing to do with creationism or evolution. Tarinth 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep if drastically rewritten I do not think it is the best written piece I have ever seen. It is hard to read. Some of it is probably their own paraphrasing of the text in the arguments but not well sourced. However, this is a classic argument for the existence of God. The editor/editors have not dug very deeply into the literature and have not sourced their statements very well to tie the statements in the article to the references. This needs better citing, and more sources and more material. How about more on the history of this argument? It has a long rich history in philosophy I know. I think that the comment of the author above that "this is a fork of the creationism-evolution controversy and we have more than enough of that shit already" betrays a severe bias which makes me not take his comments very seriously. In fact, they color my opinion of his rationality quite negatively. Where does this article talk about evolution? Where does this article talk about the creationist myth? This is an argument for a deity. It is too much of a stub and needs to be filled out considerably. It needs better references. I am tempted to respond to "we have too much of that shit already" but that is inappropriate in the interests of comity. However, I will state that such a statement displays this editor in a very bad light indeed.--Filll 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, I don't mind contributing more content to this article. I've already tried to add some information critical of the argument to the article, but I'll wait to see if it stays around to invest much more in it.  I think it's an important concept with a fairly ancient history. Tarinth 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The policy on arguments for/against existence of God is that each significant argument has its own article, showing what the argument is and what the major points against the argument are. The argument, by definition, "seeks to advance a position" but the article simply reports the argument from an NPOV. By all means expand/improve it of course. NBeale 10:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I should disclose that I am the original author of the article. I should also add that "NPOV" is not considered a good reason for deletion but for improvement, and that if even Dawkins has heard of this argument and thinks it worth referring to in passing it can't be that obscure! I agree it needs expanding etc.. that's why I marked it a stub. But if we delete it the expansion will never happen! NBeale 14:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed I have just checked, Dawkins has a section called The argument from beauty" and devotes 1½ pages to this, the same as he devotes to the first three of Aquinas's arguments combined If 'Dawkins' thinks the argument is that notable, that's pretty strong evidence for a keep IMHO NBeale 14:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with NBeale. My personal views are more in line with Dawkins's, which is why I amended the article with some of the philosophical objections; I see no reason why people on either side of the discussion cannot make valuable contributions and keep the tone neutral (which I believe it is). Tarinth 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. NN view, merge any relevent, verifiable content with Teleological argument if possible.--Andrew c 15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So should we take your !vote as a Merge then? Tarinth 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Interesting ideas but author may need to find some other venue for it than a free-standing Wikipedia article. OR, unsourced, unverifiable. Wikipedia collects information, not creates it. Tragic romance 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is a form of teleological argument and I have edited the article to say that and it is an argument specifically addressed by other notables. I do not feel it is a POV fork of teleological argument as long as we keep in both for and against sides of this specific example. That aside, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so an infinite entity would fine all things "beautiful" even the most ugliest of creatures e.g. my personal fav the guinea worm. That we find some things beautiful and other things ugly and then some use this to prove the existence of an entity who would not make that distinction shows the true value of this argument. I like this argument as you can drive a train through it. Toot toot....Ttiotsw 07:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ttiotsw. Though the whole point of the AfB is that, according to classical Theism, Beauty is not simply "in the eye of the beholder" and that God distinguishes rightly between beauty and ugliness, as well as betwen truth and falsehood.  You can hold that Premise (1) is mistaken, but if it is true then the argument is valid and the conclusion follows. But premises can always be debated NBeale 08:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I can't put my hands on the relevant info in a hurry, but I have encountered this line of argument in the established philosophical/theological literature, albeit in some sidewaters. It's not OR as far as I'm concerned. It does need to be tightened up, however. Pgg7 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep – This article could use a lot of work, but so could 80% of Wikipedia articles. IMHO, it is adequately referenced, relevent, and does not constitute OR. Keep it. &mdash; James.S  ( talk •  contribs  • count ) 02:24, 8 January 2007 (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.