Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aestheticization of violence

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. W.marsh 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aestheticization of violence

Aestheticization of violence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I struggled with this nomination as it is obvious that a lot of work has gone into this article, and all edits were made in good faith. However, the article is plagued with original research, and I doubt that this topic could ever satisfy the grounds of Wikipedia:No Original Research. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This actually looks like a well reseached and sourced article. In fact, I don't even see that much Orginial Research. If you allege orginial research, you should show at least a few examples. I see tons of things that say "____" said that: "________". The problems with sourcing that I see are a few sections under film and video, and even there, most are sourced.Fimbulwintr 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. This is a difficult one, and I understand the struggle with the nomination. It's similar to its sister article Aestheticization as propaganda. Both articles have problems of borderline or overt violations of WP:OR (the film section in this article is particularly problematic) and both are somewhat confusing and/or seemingly off topic at points (also the topic as a whole is somewhat ill defined). They are too much like personal essays, and the basic core of both articles seems to have come from User:David91, apparently a respected editor who said he was going into the hospital for a few days over a year ago and has not been heard from since. Because this article, and its sister article, bear a strong imprint from an editor who is no longer active (we can only hope by his own choice) and because they are very esoteric, it is difficult to see how to go about fixing their weaknesses and turning them into good wikipedia articles. It seems like some people are trying, but I'm skeptical. Nonetheless I think the article should be kept for now as I think it is a legitimate topic worthy of wikipedia, it just needs a lot of work and it might ultimately have to be abandoned. I recommend an essay tag like the one at the top of Aestheticization as propaganda.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep the concept is commonly bandied about, & there's certainly a lot of what it refers to out there. other problems (essay, wp:or etc) should be dealt with by editing the article, regardless of nominator's inability to conceive of this  ⇒ bsnowball  10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep basically it just needs a lot of work, but not scraping and re-starting. Whist there is a lot of OR in the article, the subject itself is well documented, and it's just a case of bringing more of that into the article. --Davémon 17:56, 31 May 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.