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 Userfy so that creator can merge contents into the book author's biography.. Carlossuarez46 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homo Aestheticus

[edit]

Contested prod. This article appears to be a book review, which is substantiated by the original author's edit comments, thereby violating original research policy. No references at all. Few relevant Google hits. Realkyhick 15:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Agreement reached between nominator and original author to merge portions of this article with that of the book's author. Additional sourced provided since nomination solve the sources issue as well. Request that this discussion be closed with result of Merge and redirect. Realkyhick 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. --Finngall ^talk 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above (original research) :) -- Stwalkerster talk 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC) ))[reply]

Article now amended removing all value judgements and adding full references. This article is now a straight description of the book in question, is not original research, and meets Wikipedia guidelines.--Wavecreststudios 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The references only refer to the book itself. We need references from other independent, reliable sources that talk about the book (Amazon and other booksellers don't count, except to get an ISBN) and prove that it is notable. Realkyhick 19:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- How does the article assert notability? --Dhartung | Talk 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems particularly redolent of WP:COPYVIO though Google turns up no identical text. --Dhartung | Talk 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article asserts notability based on the fact that the subject of the book - "making special" - is the most notable contribution to the subject by an author widely acclaimed as an accomplished anthropologist, indeed, Wikipedia has an article on her - see 'Ellen Dissanayake'. She is a key player in the emerging field of Bioaesthetics. The Wikipedia article mentions "making special" but does not give any significant explanation, and I felt that a description of her book on the subject would help. Regarding copyright, I am telling you that I wrote this article, myself, without copying from anyone - and speaking as a lecturer on the subject of Bioaesthetics, I think I am able to write my own articles without the need to copy. There is also NO copyright infringement here, indeed, I sent a copy of the text to Ellen prior to publication for her approval, which I promptly received. Peter Baker. --Wavecreststudios 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other references talking about Homo Aestheticus:

1. "Offers a wealth of original and critical thinking." American Anthropologist
2. "Homo Aestheticus calls for a counterrevolution in our thinking about art. It is timely, provocative, and immensely valuable." Philosophy and Literature
3. "A wide-ranging essay on the place of art in human evolution and in the future, at once learned and spirited" Howard Gardner, the John H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He also holds positions as Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Harvard University and Senior Director of Harvard Project Zero. In 2004 he was named an Honorary Professor at East China Normal University in Shanghai. Among numerous honors, Gardner received a MacArthur Prize Fellowship in 1981 and in 2000 he received a Fellowship from the John S. Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. In 2005, he was selected by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines as one of 100 most influential public intellectuals in the world. He has received honorary degrees from twenty-one colleges and universities, including institutions in Ireland, Italy, Israel, and Chile. The author of over twenty books translated into twenty-six languages, and several hundred articles, Gardner is best known in educational circles for his theory of multiple intelligences, a critique of the notion that there exists but a single human intelligence that can be assessed by standard psychometric instruments.

Peter Baker --Wavecreststudios 19:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have proper citations (issue date, author name where known, page number) for those quotes you just posted — which should have been put in the article itself, by the way? See this page for instructions. Realkyhick 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way guys... as a total novice, just wanting to understand how things work... were I to challenge the articles on Wikipedia that you have there about yourselves (not that I would want to do that, because like you I believe in being inclusive rather than exclusive)... how do the rules about not writing articles about oneself operate in this case, and - forgive me if I looked in the wrong place - but I couldn't see anything there in the way of proof of YOUR notability... independent, reliable references, that is?? Are there different rules for you? Peter Baker --Wavecreststudios 20:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is silly enough to write an article about me, then you can argue my notability all night long. Heck, I'd probably speedy-delete myself. But this isn't about me, or even you personally, although you seem to be trying to make it personal if the message you left on my talk page is any indication. It all boils down to the fact that 1) Wikipedia is not a place for book reviews or personal essays, but an encyclopedia where subjects are presented with as much source material to verify as possible; and 2) the notability of the book itself, given the source citations (or lack thereof) presented in the article. Realkyhick 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article you now have is NOT a book review. NOR is it a personal essay, any more than ANY other existing entry in Wikipedia is a personal essay. Every sentence in the article is verifyible by anyone who cares to look at the book: every one of them is a verifiable fact, not an opinion or a theory or original research. When I say "she said 'X'" I may have paraphrased it, but that she said 'X' in as many words is a FACT, and I have not only documented EVERY SENTENCE in the article by page number, but I have told you that I had ELLEN'S confirmation that my article is an accurate description of her book. No reasonable reader would need the exalted journals I mentioned to say Ellen is a significant anthropologist, or that her main contribution is notable, particularly since - again as I have already told you - she is ALREADY in Wikipedia, including mention of her book Homo Aestheticus, and of 'making special' as her most notable contribution. You and anyone else could check that beyond ANY doubt whatsoever should that be your real concern. And I don't think that Howard Gardner saying it's a good book adds anything to what I wrote, which is far more specific - if his quote DOES add anything I didn't cover, please tell me what this is, and if you are right, I will add it. If, though, you are worried that I might have made up these quotes, then take a look at the back of the dust jacket of 'Art and Intimacy', also by Ellen Dissanayake, and published by the University of Washington in 2000. You will find them all there, back of the dust jacket. In terms of page number, publication, and date of my references, that, I think satisfies the last item on the exclusion list you seem to be working through. Unless of course, you think that the University of Washington is not a worthy source? If so, then please say so and I will take it up with them - I'm sure they would be interested to know your opinions. And on the personal issue, I have no problem with you, only with the strange way you are seeking to apply Wikipedia's rules in this particular case. Everything in the article is factual, everything is documented, everything is verifiable, and the subject of the article I have clearly documented as notable. I have now also documented where these additional quotes in praise of the book come from. If there are any OTHER reasons why you think Wikepedia readers should not know about the ideas presented in her book, please let us all know, otherwise I'd be obliged if you would openly withdraw your objections to it. Peter Baker --Wavecreststudios 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, despite the arguments of Peter Baker --Wavecreststudios. By the way, by "the articles on Wikipedia that you have there about yourselves", I'm thinking he may mean our userpages. Nyttend 22:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So nice to see a closely reasoned argument from someone claiming the right to judge ideas. Thanks Nyttend. I wonder what would happen to justice if the prosecution did not need to present a case, and could instead convict based on their conscious or subconscious prejudice?--Wavecreststudios 01:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say that I find the AfD a bit premature. Granted, the article as it was first written was more or less a book review. However, Realkyhick nominated this article not even ten minutes after it first appeared. With respect, the amount of time between Wavecreststudios's first post and Realkyhick's PROD was 5 minutes. That is really not enough time to allow adaquet research to determine notability. It took me at least 15 minutes to assemble the short—but significant—list of references below. Aside from the short period between article creation and PROD, it should be noted that this appears to be Wavecreststudios's first significant contribution to Wikipedia. He is probably a bit unclear on the fine points of our rules regulating content. I think it would have been prudent to inform him of the problems with his article and give him sometime to correct them before nominating it to be deleted.

-Second, a bit of research establishes that this book is notable with-in its field. Here is a limited list of scholarly articles that quote Ms. Dissanayake's text. (I found these using Project Muse, the online journal database. It should be noted that project muse archives a limited number of journals, and it is likely further articles quoting the book have appeared.)

The Chaucer Review 39.3 (2005) 225-233

Philosophy of Music Education Review 11.1 (2003) 23-44

Criticism 47.4 (2007) 421-450

Journal of American Folklore 116.462 (2003) 444-464

Leonardo - Volume 38, Number 3, June 2005, pp. 239-244

Journal of the History of Ideas 64.4 (2003) 581-597

The Journal of Aesthetic Education 41.1 (2007) 90-104

Philosophy and Literature 23.2 ( 1999) 393-413

Philosophy and Literature 25.2 (2001) 251-277

The Journal of Aesthetic Education 39.2 (2005) 36-57

-Also, you can read a review of the book in question here. The text was first printed in Philosophy and Literature 18 (1994).

-My vote is merge: Though I believe this is book is notable, I am voting that the material in the current Homo Aestheticus article be rewritten to include sources and merged with the article on its Ellen Dissanayake. My limited research showed that a number of authors had written books or articles discussing the concept of a Homo Aestheticus. The homo aestheticus article should discuss the term in general not as it is used in one book. Fixer1234 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine with me. I'm not sure if I would have to check and report on all the literature for the merge to take place (I really don't have time for so large an enterprise), or whether it would be enough to merge the existing article and list the other references mentioned above for people to follow up should they wish. My only purpose here was to see if it was possible to start using Wikipedia to pull together the existing strands of knowledge about Bioaesthetics as a framework for researchers, and I had not realised - if that is the case - that I would need to review the whole literature, or that Project Muse was available for me to do that. When I was asked for evidence of what I claimed in the article - and it IS a description, not a review - then I made the changes I thought had been requested. I expected to make changes, but I had thought people would give constructive criticism rather than try to squash the knowledge it contained. Anyway, I really appreciate the input and help. As Fixer1234 suspects, this was my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia - Ellen Dissanayake has a lot to say about my subject, so I wanted to start with her book - and I was totally astonished, dismayed and discouraged at the reaction I got.

But then when I noted from realkyhick's user page that he was a strong supporter of Pentecostal evangelism and the Assemblies of God, I jumped to the conclusion that he had some kind of search in operation to alert him to any new article relating to Evolution (how else, I thought, did he spot it so fast amongst all that must be going on - must have been spotted almost the second it went up) and that his motive was to suppress the ideas it contained. Evolution is at the core of this article and is a prime target for evangelist thinking, after all. And the speed with which the article was AfD-ed, not just queried, and what I saw as the intransigent position adopted and the apparent inability to respond to the points I made - this all added to my suspicions, but of course, that is all they are - suspicions. I don't know him, and I don't know how he found the article so fast, I don't know if that was the motive, and when challenged he certainly denied that it was. What I WOULD say, though, is that in good justice systems, if a judge is aware that he has a conflict of interest in trying a case, then he disqualifies himself from that case - or faces trouble if he doesn't. Similarly if a jury member has a vested interest, or for clear reasons is unlikely to be open to reason in a trial, the defence has the right to object to that juror. Why, I wonder, is there no such protocol in Wikipedia? Are we not open to wholesale censorship from any and every vested interest or fundamentalist group with enough organisation and clout? Until Fixer1234's input I was in despair of the standards I saw on Wikipedia, the apparent inability to present a coherent case or to assist in the salvage of the article, and about to tell everyone what I thought of their professionalism, and retire from Wikipedia for good, advising everyone I know in my field not to waste their time with the website. I really think editors need to have a set of professional standards they should abide by. That's obvious, isn't it? --Wavecreststudios 12:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wavecreststudios: There is a new page patrol on Wikipedia, which allows editors to see a list of recently created pages. This may be how Realkyhick found the article - it's a good way for new articles to be checked and classified. kateshortforbob 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which, as any cursory glance at my edit history would show, is exactly how I found the article. I spend a great deal of time (more than I should) on new page patrol. There are a number of editors and administrators that can attest to this. Furthermore, I take great offense at Wavecreststudios an his continuing accusations that I am on some sort of crusade on behalf of the church I belong to. I consider this to be a personal attack, which is a strong violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:PA). I do not go surfing around Wikipedia, seeking to eliminate any view with which I or my church disagree. Again, even the most cursory glance at my user contributions page would reveal that my only agenda is to keep Wikipedia free of articles which clearly do not belong there, regardless of ideology. I am not a juror who should be summarily cast aside because the defendant doesn't like him. I brought the charge, for lack of a better term. I strongly stand by my original reason for nominating this article for deletion: "This article appears to be a book review, which is substantiated by the original author's edit comments, thereby violating original research policy. No references at all. Few relevant Google hits." The original author's insistence on making this a personal issue goes against the very principle of "professional standards" that he seeks to have Wikipedia impose. I will add that his overly combative, exceedingly defensive attitude expressed here, and the snarky remarks he has made to other editors in this discussion, will not stand him in good stead with anyone at all — that's not Wikipedia policy, but pure human nature. As for greatly condensing the content in this article and merging it into the article of the book's author, that seems to be quite reasonable, and I would not oppose this outcome at all. Realkyhick 15:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The whole point of new page patrol is to eliminate poorly written, non referenced or not notable articles as soon as possible. That is the easiest way to find them. I do not understand why people continually post articles that do not cite references and then complain when they are deleted so quickly. Do the research construct, the article in sandbox then post it when it is complete. This would solve these types of issues. @ Wavecreststudios The attacks on Realkyhick are uncalled for. If you look at his history you can see that he edits and deletes articles as they come down the pipe and not by using some Evangelical Wikipedia Search Engine guiding his edits. Helmsb 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is why was this article marked for deletion within five minutes of its appearance? As someone totally new to Wikipedia I could have been asked to remove the two value judgements in the article, which would have changed it from a book review into a summary, and summaries, since they add no new information, do not fall within Wikipedia's description of original research, and it would then not have needed to be deleted. Result? Article saved. Regarding the references, it would also have been possible to mark it as requiring references and soliciting people to add them - as, for example, was done on the article "Essays", which has not been marked for removal, by you or anyone else. The question here is why you and the others who leapt into your footsteps, did not choose to do that? This was your first response to a new arriver to Wikipedia, someone attempting to make a useful contribution to his academic field, and to Wikipedia in general. Your first response to me was highly combative, and I have simply defended myself against what I see as a series of destructive criticisms aimed at removal of useful (and existing) information to people in my field. If you would like to explain why you marked this article for removal within five minutes of its appearance instead of attempting to save it, then I am sure we will all be interested to know. As for whether defending myself from destructive, faulty and unreasoned criticism will stand me 'in good stead' with other editors, I am sure they will all make up their own minds. Fixer1234 took a constructive approach, and I am endebted to him for that. The article is better for his intervention, and future articles from me, if I think it is worthwhile trying in future, will be better too. If I alienate combative editors, though, who seek to destroy first contributions that are worthy of being saved, then so be it. If the worst that happens is that they don't help me, then I haven't lost much, have I? Regarding your suggestion of merging the article, I have no problem with that, as I have said, but I would like you to explain your reasons for wanting it 'greatly condensed', and would like to know exactly which features of the article you would like removed. --201.93.232.219 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — 201.93.232.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have already listed why it was marked for deletion within five minutes. We don't make a distinction as to whether an article that qualifies for speedy deletion comes from an inexperienced user or a veteran. The call is made based on the article, not the author. Our so-called combative response was in large part based on your own reactions. Now on to how to fix the article: 1) Merge it into a new section of the author's article. 2) Cut each of the sub-sections down to about half their current lengths. I'll leave you to decide what, since you're much more familiar with the subject. 3) Keep all the references, although it would help greatly if you could link them to an online site where they can be found, for verification purposes. (I know that sometimes the smaller journals don't have web sites, so that may not be possible; if not, just leave it as is.) You might even want to include a quote or two from some of those sources to boost the assertion of notability, and make the section more interesting in general. If you're willing to do that, then we would turn this article into a "redirect," which means that someone who types "Homo Aestheticus" into the Search box would be sent to the author's article. Realkyhick 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the merge this weekend, when I get back from a trip. And I'm quite happy for it to be a redirect as you suggest. Will prune it as far as I can, but it may not be to half. Other, possibly, than that, we have a consensus. --201.93.232.219 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) — 201.93.232.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sounds good. As you may have seen at the top of the discussion, I've requested that this be closed with a consensus for merge and redirect. Realkyhick 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to those who chose to classify this article as ''original research', may I remind them of the definition given in the Wikipedia guide for this subject:
"'Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)."

Read the article again - it is purely a summary and therefore not covered by this definition. Or to say it another way "The purpose of original research is to produce new knowledge" There is no new knowledge in this article, it consists of a summary of the book, nothing else. Therefore it is NOT original research.
--201.93.232.219 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)— 201.93.232.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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.