Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semiotics of Ideal Beauty

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Merge/redirect, rename, split are all possible options. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Semiotics of Ideal Beauty

 * Original research, non-verifiable, non-notable. Zero Google hits, except for Wikipedia and its mirrors. Delete -- The Anome 06:44, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I will content myself with no more than two simple assertions: this is not original: paradigmatic analysis has been common in semiotics for years; and the fact that Google does not hit the phrase in the title, is hardly relevant to determining whether this is notable. If that were the criterion, many topics covered predominantly in the hard copy or limited internet access academic world would never gain exposure in the wider world. It amuses me that the opinions of a student seem to have triggered this. I have offered to retitle, to merge the material or simply to let him re-edit. Rather than negotiate, this page has been posted for deletion. Well, since humility is required, I vote for deletion immediately and let's all get on with something else more important. -David91 07:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Dave, I apologize. I did not mean for an actual vote to move forward so quickly. But, have neither fear nor bitterness. These things can go on for months and can actually serve to garner more interest in the subject.--Slac 16:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per David91 above. Needs to be made more NPOV though. Kappa 08:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it's an interesting, well thought out article, maybe it can be retitled or merged to some other existent article, but the content is worth developing. --Brendanfox 13:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I was not able to verify the source of the article from my university or public library. It was already clear the title does not represent whatever subject it describes (seemingly "semiotic aesthetics") but the one source that is referenced is also of questionable representability. --Slac 14:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have some significant problems with this. Semiotics of ideal beauty?  Excuse me, but semiotics presupposes a transhistorical grammar of signs, and yet everything in the article is about historical conditioning of aesthetics.  Also, the writing is in lecture format, still, so that makes it more of a presentation and original research than it should be.  The best idea might be to reduce the material and merge it to semiotics ("Semiotics in aesthetics"]] or beauty ("A semiotic approach").  However, it seems to me utterly hopeless.  Semiotic analysis as I learned it would never ask if there is an ideal beauty, but would rather ask what the token "ideal beauty" does and how it is applied linguistically and epistemically in all cultures, and it would seek to do this by never asking if a beauty were beautiful, but merely look for all contexts of the beautiful and try to trace the structures behind those uses.  I suppose my suggestion is move to user page and then merge to appropriate topics in various pieces.  I simply can't see this highly, highly specialized and exceptionally narrow pursuit being a topic sought in an encyclopedia by this lemma. Geogre 02:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if cleaned up. Interesting. JamesBurns 04:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * merge, rename, delete &mdash; What is left over when the lecturing is removed can find a place under Ideal beauty or aesthetics. It is suspicious there should be "Semiotics of Ideal beauty" before and until we have a long article on "Ideal beauty" itself (see Wikipedia_talk:Importance). "Semiotics of..." in a title should be a last resort of exporting from a really overloaded article. Barring that, there is nothing to stop us from treating the semiotics of anything in that thing's main article. dab (&#5839;) 10:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Clean out and merge with Beauty. The opinions need removing (or adjusting to a better form of expression) and there is no reason why this shouldn't be under the main topic for those who are interested.  --Douglas 11:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP You know, someones actually working on this article. I'm not saying it doesn't need work, but lets wait and see when it comes to deleting... Roodog2k 01:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP/MERGE IMHO, although needing work, this information is beneficial, informative, and interesting. Please don't delete. Roodog2k 16:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your words of caution, Roodog, but I report that Slac and I have decided not to work on the page. My vote is already cast for delete. If others want to work on the piece to save it, that is their right. As my final thought on this topic, it's good to see a group of people prepared to debate the instrinsic value of content as against the manner of presentation. -David91 05:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Andycjp 15th June 2005
 * Keep it. Google isn't the navel of the world. --Istabraq 04:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Classroom project . They added several such low-quality and original research articles and left them w/o maintenance. Some were already deleted. If this is real topic someone more knowledgeable should recreate it. Pavel Vozenilek 19:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Keep". I find this entry to be very interesting and fairly well written.
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .