Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful picture

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beautiful picture

A page empty of meaningful content. It's about what is, and what makes, a "beautiful picture". So why not have articles on Beautiful trees, or Ugly tires. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, agree with nominator. -- Heptor _talk 16:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nom, no references for the concept 'beautiful picture' Gu 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Edwy 18:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete you can string any adjective with a noun and make an article if we keep this one Barry Zuckerkorn 19:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fan1967 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - This article (per history notes), seems to have been created for no other purpose than to turn a red link blue in the following post from Talk:Democracy, about the phrase "Pure democracy": "In many ways, it's a concept on the same level of ambiguity as "beautiful picture". Do we need a beautiful picture article? The phrase certainly is used a lot. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- Nikodemos 07:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)" - Fan1967 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and Christofurio would be well advised not to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. -- Nikodemos 19:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR -- noosphere 22:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- as Fan1967 indicates, the idea arose out of Mihnea's suggestion in Talk:democracy, that "beautiful picture" often functions the same way in discussions of aesthetics that "pure democracy" does in discussions of politics. It certainly doesn't follow, as Mihnea now seems to contend, that I'm "disrupting" anything. Only that I am sometimes subject to his influence -- it's odd he should think his own influence so disruptive, especially sans evidence. The point, though, is that both phrases have paradigmatic value (in the old-pre-Kuhnian sense of the world paradigm (disambiguation)), so both phrases should have articles. They are both very different from the phrase "ugly tires," as I haven't encountered the use of tires in such a context lately, but I have encountered and used both of the expressions that are involved in Mihnea's analogy. --Christofurio 13:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It seems to me that Nikodemos (or Mihnea?) was making the point that just because a phrase is common does not mean it deserves an article. Either you totally missed his point, or you created this article in order to make a point of your own. It does not deserve an article. Fan1967 21:40, 6 April 2006 (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.