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. Sr13 03:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuteness[edit]

Cuteness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

There are no real facts about cuteness, and there are many things in the article that are POV. ANNAfoxlover 20:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although some offerings for additional reading there seems to be a big dose of WP:OR here. JodyB _talk 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Which part is the original research then? Is it the analysis by Konrad Lorenz for which a source is cited in the article? Is it the the analysis by Stephen Jay Gould for which a source is cited in the article? Uncle G 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as the OR concerns go, this isn't the first writing to link "cuteness" to both studies in neoteny and studies of how cartoon characters are drawn. I remember reading an article in 3-2-1 Contact magazine when I was a kid that did the very same thing. Squidfryerchef 02:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I know it's not the best reason to keep an article, but we have one about cool also. Useight 00:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's a pretty good article, maybe a model for the direction "Cuteness" should go in. Cause that's where Wikipedia could really step up to the plate; there's a lot of things in the world that everybody knows about, like what's cool or what makes something cute, but serious studies can be hard to find. Squidfryerchef 02:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think it's worth keeping, the thing on pedomorphosis and on Mickey for example is interesting. Roscelese 00:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then add those to the Mickey Mouse article. We don't need a whole new article for one little bit of trivia. ANNAfoxlover 01:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem not to be looking at the article at hand, which comprises not "one little bit of trivia" but several paragraphs of verifiable analysis. Uncle G 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete — The soure right now isn't very reliable, but perhaps some better ones could be found. If so, the POVish content could be removed, and I think there would then be a good article. I'm sure someone could dig up some good sources if they took the time. But in the article's present condition, it should be deleted. *Cremepuff222* 01:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of Konrad Lorenz and Stephen Jay Gould are unreliable, and why? I suspect that you just looked at the "References" section, and didn't note who is actually being cited by the article. Uncle G 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think much of this is salvageable. The "psychology of cuteness" section seems to contain good, encyclopedic information. Zagalejo 01:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up especially references. The article does cite sources and the topic is worthy of discussion. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a real phenomenon, and is backed up with studies in "neoteny" as well as the role of "cuteness" in various cultures, ex. kawaii in Japan. Suggest diffing against the article as it was a year ago and choosing the best parts. The article may have gone down in quality from a while back. Squidfryerchef 04:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it hasn't. Looking at this diff of more than a year, there is very little difference. The sections have been re-ordered, but contain much the same content. Some external links have become proper citations; and some external links to rubbish have been removed. The images have disappeared (about which one can find an argument on the talk page). And a pointer to a paper by professor Michael C. LaBarbera of the University of Chicago has gone missing.

    One editor who supported the removal of the images is the very editor who has just nominated this entire article for deletion. I note that xe supported the removal of images after xe could not get xyr own "Dogs are cute; cats are not." bias (evident from xyr edits and xyr talk page contributions) to stick in the article, leading me to believe that this nomination is what we've seen many times before at AFD: An editor cannot get their bias on one particular point to stick, so they nominate the entire article for deletion. Uncle G 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First of all, cute fluffy bushy awww, second of all, as the article demonstrated, cuteness has been researched (nurturing instincts etc), discussed, awarded, and I believe the topic, due to its nature, scope and influence, in itself is encyclopedic. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs better sources but has definite potential - Pharaonic 11:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a perfectly valid article on a perfectly valid field of psychological study. Capmango 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Origional research--Sefringle^Talk 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please answer the questions posed right at the start of this discussion. Uncle G 09:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but perhaps rename - Science of Cuteness? In the least, the opening paragraph does not do the topic justice. The article then launches into the real topic which is meritorious and notable. Enhanced by active researchers, this could be a truly excellent article and I would hope to see it grow with at least some enthusiasm. Pever 03:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Psychology of Cuteness would be a better title. Cuteness should redirect there, though Capmango 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitive Keep The article is linked to de:Kindchenschema. There appears to be no translation for it as used in academia (particularly in biology and psychology) and I'm not sure if that term, coined by Konrad Lorenz [1], can be translated at all. It roughly translates to "little child scheme" and is used in zoology to describe the recurring pattern of typical physical proportions in the young of higher animals (down to and including humans). Lorenz' hypothesis was that those patterns of "looking cute" are evolutionary linked to parental care witnessed in many species, esp. mammals, and constitute a biological trigger. Granted, the article could use some rewriting (starting with "Cuteness is a measure of how cute something is.") and should possibly be renamed to the German term if there isn't a proper English term, but the topic itself is definitely worthy of inclusion. Remember that even though Lorenz' research has been superseeded by more complex theories in neurophysiology and ethology, it doesn't change the historical landmark value of his research. —AldeBaer 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Couple more sources: "[2]". ((cite web)): External link in |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)[3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Speedy keep as faulty nomination. —AldeBaer 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Verifiable, and even a fairly important topic, from a psychological and biological standpoint. --Joelmills 01:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is a real topic in the encyclopedic sense (versus only the dictionary). The main problem this article faces is editors warring over subjective "cute" pictures of their pets or favorite animals instead of covering scientific studies of "cuteness." I think that as a rule to stop constant OR and unencyclopedic problems in this article the use of pictures should be disallowed. And yes, a rename to 'psychology of cuteness' may be warranted. The Behnam 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, comparing the two WordNet entries [8] v. [9] shows that "cuteness" is different from "cute." Seeing that this article appears to cover the "cute" meaning I will make the appropriate move. Of course I will move it back if that screws up the AFD. The Behnam 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just wait until after the Afd has been closed? —AldeBaer 19:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can wait. The Behnam 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This particular discussion can take place on the talk page of the article, in the mean time. --Deskana (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are multiple sources showing that this is an encyclopedic topic. If there are problems with the treatment, change the article, don't delete it. NoahB 12:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[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.