Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semiotics of ideal 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   delete. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 00:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Semiotics of ideal beauty

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This was nominated for deletion in 2005, I can't find the debate but it resulted in "no consensus", and as I recall at that time the article was about the "Semiotics of Ideal Beauty" (capitalised) as a proper name for someone's non-notable semi-philosophical weirdness. (I think it was User:GenderStudies - a since vanished obsessive.)


 * Since found the old debate, it was here

This current article is certainly better. But I can still see no evidence that there is a field of knowledge about the semiotics of "ideal beauty", as opposed to other types of human semiotics. The few Google-hits on the title mainly yield the same capitalised version weirdness. There's really no sources here - and with no improvement in 4 years, despite some gallant cleanup, all we have, and are ever likely to have, is an essay, synthesising vaguely related sources and common sense. A real article would be able to name scholars in the field and some academic works that gave an overview. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC) strong delete The article does not carry out the project indicated by the title, and instead meanders all over the place. It relies on "original research" and opinion. Misuse of the word 'semiotic' in title should be noted - this isn't an article in semiotics. --Levalley (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley
 * I'm holding off on a judgement call for now, but at the moment it smells like original research. Google isn't pulling up much other than Wikipedia mirrors.  Them From  Space  05:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete at least under this title. I see no evidence that its an actual phrase. DGG (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. Generally no reliable sources after a long time should mean no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an WP:OR essay. The term itself doesn't appear to be notable in philosophy.  Them  From  Space  04:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete OR/homework essay. pablo hablo. 06:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sure what this article is about, but I don't think it's about "Semiotics" or "ideal beauty". Also of relevance is Geogre's comment in the earlier deletion discussion: "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." -- llywrch (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2009 (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.