Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aestheticization as propaganda

: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. This seems an appropriate article on which to implement WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Aestheticization as propaganda]]=

:{{la|Aestheticization as propaganda}} ([{{fullurl:Aestheticization as propaganda|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aestheticization as propaganda}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Contested prod; reads and presents like an essay. The overall tone, and indeed the topic, is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Moreover, the article is laden with original research and unverified claims. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, agree with nom. I encountered this article as a prod that was almost expired, at WP:PRODSUM. It is entirely an opinion piece guised as an encyclopedia article (although less discreetly towards the bottom of the article) – frankly, the article should have run its course through prod, due to its tone and obvious crossing the line of what Wikipedia is not. Jamie☆S93 03:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Could alternatively be redirected to the one book used as source if it's discussed there substantially. But this subject is not appropriate or notable per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definitely reads like an essay on the topic—but is this phrase even an appropriate term of art in the philosophy community? It appears to be original research. TheFeds 06:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Drivel. Nick mallory (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I tagged it as a prod first off and still believe it should be deleted. Unsourced, plenty of OR, I suspect this is the distillation of someone's undergrad thesis. It really says very little although in a nice wooly way. For good measure it is stuffed full of POV. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - The prod tag was removed by a user who has been removing prod tags for little to no reason. In this case his only reason for contesting the prod was the fact that the article is 5 years old. Delete per all the previous reasons, and per WP:SNOW. -- Atamachat 19:50, 21 June 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.