mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet aesthetic Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_aesthetic

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. I see a clear consensus for deletion here, which I'm honestly baffled by; it certainly seems like A Thing to me. If any editors think they could reconceptualize this in a way that would pass an AfD discussion and would like to crib from this article to do so, I'm happy to restore it to userspace for you. asilvering (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet aesthetic

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Internet aesthetic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is largely an essay lackign a sourced defintion of "internet aesthetic" and collection of topics that aren't supported through any source suggesting their connection to this term. This is largely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There is one source from Vogue in 2022 that references "internet aesthetics" but not in connection to wide range of examples provided here. ZimZalaBim talk 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Presents a list of things that are somewhat related, more of a meme or trends than any sort of related aesthetic items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of this is synthesis. Just because an aethetic or design or fashion is popular in the modern day and is discussed on the internet does not mean it is an "internet aethetic". That's just how the world works now, not a substantive cohesive concept: "that usually originates from the Internet or is popularized on it" – very little in the last 20 years wasn't popularized on the internet, so this is a meaningless characteristic unless you are just fluffing up the most recent and niche trends. "micro-trends such as mob wife and tomato girl summer" Groan. Which sources actually bring the concepts here together? Reywas92Talk 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all reasons above. At most, this might be best suited as a category for worthwhile articles such as Corecore, dark academia, light academia, and so on. Only problem is that the title is itself a wholesale invention. I don't think it's influenced the popular literature to remain as [[Category:Internet aesthetics]]. Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nom and the arguments presented that the article is a synthesis of original research. Perhaps in a few years if scholarly books or articles are written about this topic it will become notable. At this time it is not. Netherzone (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reiterating my !vote. The two source analysis tables below by @WomenArtistUpdates are very convincing. The term is WP:SYNTH, and the article is WP:OR; the subject does not meet criteria for WP:GNG. At this point it is simply a figure of speech, but not a wiki-notable one per the source analyses. I do not think that what is being argued in the k**p !votes has the exactitude necessary to prove that this concept is a "thing" represented clearly and significantly in reliable sources outside of searching for the two terms being used in the same sentence or paragraph. If one googles "orange" and "avocado" together in a search, that does not mean that "orange avocados" exist, nor that "avocado flavored oranges" exist. (The same could be said for "internet orange avocados".) The article should not be retained in the encyclopedia and should be deleted at this time. Netherzone (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with everyone else. History being a definition of aesthetic with a line from Vogue tacked on? Seems like a desperate, last minute high school essay more than an article. There are individual elements which might be able to stand on their own, but as a whole it's all over the place. Tengu99 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews does not establish notability. See WP:POPULARPAGE. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay. Essays have nothing to do with policy or guidelines, they are opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I suspect most editors here respect the views expressed at WP:ATA. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respect is fine but is not a policy or guideline. Many editors name essays as if they were canon, they are not. They are opinion and have nothing to do with deletion close decisions (or at least shouldn't). Sources have been found and listed for this topic, and that should be enough, per GNG, to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination mentions a lack of sourced definitions, here is a link to some (disregard the first, Wikipedia, and look beyond that, such as this long and detailed screenshot article). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. While the majority of sources are unusable, the Glamour article, this First Monday article, and potentially this German one are all usable. Ornov Ganguly TALK 12:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Clearly significant coverage of this, not in stuffy academic literature yet, but that's not a requirement for notability. I've spot-checked a couple of the listed aesthetics and found multiple people referring to them as 'Internet Aesthetics', or found them on lists of 'Internet Aesthetics' of course if things on this list are not called 'Internet Aesthetics' they shouldn't be there, and can be removed. (If that happens to leave us with the two that I picked at random, a delete might be appropriate!) JeffUK 11:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move - Coverage about the topic exists but the information should be rewritten to fit an encyclopedic tone.
Miiversal (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s easy to dismiss aesthetics, particularly some of the wackier ones, as superficial and frivolous. But Alexander Cho, a digital-media researcher at UC Santa Barbara, told me that they can be “really important, especially for young adults in terms of creating or fashioning a self.” If you have a hunch about who you are, it’s incredibly easy now to search for images and ideas that help you refine that sense of self.
On the opposite end this Vox article on aesthethics criticizes them as fleeting, hollow and commercial. Prospect magazine did a similar article. I can definitely understand how compared to hippies, goth, punk, etc., these niche aesthetic subcultures can seem inconsequential and like short-lived trends of the past. But there is a long-term movement away from large-scale countercultures towards niche subcultures, which makes comparing them anachronistic. The physical ecosystems of the past (clothing stores, music concerts, magazines, etc.) could only sustain a limited number of subcultures, so people outside of the mainstream only had limited groups to join, and this inflated their numbers. The current digital ecosystem (social media sites, online shopping, etc.) can support a wide diversity of niche subcultures which the larger subcultures are splintering into.
Individually most of these aesthetics subcultures are not notable, but collectively they are a sizeable movement that currently has no other article to be discussed in. Photos of Japan (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have plenty of editors here who disagree over whether "internet aesthetic" is or is not a real "thing" but we rely on sources to determine this. We have a disagreement over whether there are reliable sources verifying the subject's notability while other editors see the article as OR. Could we get a source assessment to settle this dispute over whether there are adequate sources providing SIGCOV or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Of the three sources cited by the last user, none of them use the term "internet aesthetic" (one says "internet aestheticization", though). To me this argues that the label is an attempt to tie together different things in an WP:OR way. I don't have a strong keep/delete opinion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Vox article uses both "online aesthetic" and "digital aesthetic". In reality these are just referred to as "aesthetic" most of the time, but when trying to discuss them and clearly differentiate them from regular aesthetics people sometimes put an adjective in front of them. This article could be renamed something like Aesthetic (internet). Photos of Japan (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the problem with pretty much all sources attempted. They talk about aesthetics that happen to be common/connected to the internet, but that doesn't make them an "internet aesthetic". Just because people find examples of cottagecore online doesn't make it an "internet aesthetic. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem with the sources though, but a problem with the article. The article should just refer to these as "aesthetics" and probably be named something along the lines of Aesthetics (parenthetical differentiator), but there's no clear word to put in the parentheses to differentiate it from the Aesthetics article. Photos of Japan (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been two recurring concerns brought up here: that the grouping of aesthetics here is WP:OR, and that internet aesthetics lack WP:SIGCOV. Discussion has been fragmented, so I will comprehensively address both here.
WP:OR/WP:SYNTH concerns
There are two practical methods for determining what counts as an internet aesthetic for the purpose of being incorporated into this article. For the first, any entry in the Aesthetics Wiki can simply be considered an aesthetic. The Aesthetics Wiki has wide currency as the space on the internet where aesthetics are being documented and catalogued, with multiple rs's that go in depth on internet aesthetics primarily referencing the wiki ([1][2][3]).
For the second practical method, anything containing a common aesthetic suffix or which commonly has "aesthetic" appended to the end of it can be considered an internet aesthetic for this article. For instance, "Clean Girl" is often referred to as "Clean Girl aesthetic" ([4] [5]). Common aesthetic suffixes include “core” (e.g., cottagecore), “goth” (e.g., cybergoth), “kei” (e.g., cult party kei), “punk” (e.g., sea punk), “wave” (e.g., sovietwave), and “academia” (e.g., dark academia)
WP:SIGCOV
Just glancing at the references section and looking at their titles shows that "aesthetics" in the internet sense is in widespread use by reliable sources. However, the main concern people have is whether there is significant coverage to establish them as a concept. This is unequivocally the case with multiple sources delving in depth into aesthetics:
With these (and others) there is enough to write fairly sizeable history, definition, and criticism sections. A concern that has been raised is that these do not all use the term "internet aesthetic". Many terms are used: "online aesthetic", "digital aesthetic", "micro aesthetic", etc. Most commonly they are simply called "aesthetics" (it is tangential to the discussion of notability, but I believe this article should simply refer to them as "aesthetics" and be renamed something like Aesthetic (internet)). Regardless of what they call it, it is clear they are all referring to the same concept, and are referring to things which would be considered internet aesthetics by the two practical methods described earlier.
Issues concerning the article lacking a cited definition, or other content issues have been raised, but should be addressed through editing. The lack of a cited definition is not due to lack of sources trying to define aesthetics, but due to the difficulty in defining them. I am working on a summary of how different sources have discussed its usage, but it is a linguistically complex issue and will likely take a few days. Photos of Japan (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems like an article on Aesthetics Wiki (now a redirect) would/could use the sources above more accurately. It is a tangible thing that exists, controversies and all. I don't think a case has been made that Internet aesthetic exists. Perhaps reversing the redirect would allow for a wiki worthy article that could touch on the topics listed now that fall into OR. I suggest redirect and rewrite as an alternative to deletion, unless a [fandom site] is never considered notable, in which case I stick with removing the article.I do not find any reliable sourcing for this article as it stands and don't see how it can be edited into anything wiki-worthy.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet aesthetics exist and are straightforward to identify as such even if they are hard to define. It doesn't help that "The terms "internet aesthetic" and "aesthetic" are often used interchangeably." To simply borrow the description from the wiki:
Aesthetics have now come to mean a collection of images, colors, objects, music, and writings that creates a specific emotion, purpose, and community.
Aesthetics largely emerged from the categorization of media across social aggregation websites (Instagram, Tumblr, Pinterest, etc.). Broadly speaking "aesthetics" is used to variably to describe collections of media that exemplify something akin to a style or trend, the lifestyles and communities based around them, and the individuals that identify with them. Various sources discuss, however, how they differ from things like styles (not explicitly defined, instead typically illustrated by collections of exemplifying materials), and subcultures (communities around aesthetics don't require physical participation, are more ephemeral, tend to lack political stances/morals/etc.) It is very difficult trying to summarize the various sources' descriptions of how "aesthetics" is used and what "aesthetics" are, while avoiding WP:SYNTH, due to the variety of closely related meanings the word has and the lack of a linguistics source comprehensively and explicitly detailing how the word is being used. However, all of the sources are in common agreement as to what things are aesthetics (e.g. cottagecore, Y2K aesthetic, Dark academia, etc.), these all either end in common aesthetics suffixes or are referred to as "X aesthetic" widely across social media, and are documented and appear in the Aesthetics wiki. Some sources that discuss them include:
The aesthetics of the self: The meaning-making of Internet aesthetics article in First Monday (journal) exploring and characterizing the nature of internet aesthetics:
In this study we explore the so-called Internet aesthetics, labels applied on heterogenous collections of materials and activities by Internet users, which are discussed and constructed primarily on the Internet.
Do I have an Aesthetic? article on aesthetics in Vogue (magazine)
What I’m asking in these moments is, in internet parlance, what is my aesthetic? ... I’m suddenly aware of just how many hyper-specific aesthetics with handy, catchy names already exist on the internet. Overtime, “aesthetic” has evolved from an academic word and something utilized by artists and auteurs to something to categorize our own identities by. It can mean both personal style and a vague stand-in for beauty ... Pinterest says that there has been a growing interest in aesthetics since 2018, with a “large spike of 60% in searches for simply “core aesthetic” as Pinners discovered different types of aesthetics to shape their identity,” ... On Tumblr, users would build their blogs around a particular theme, whether it was cottagecore or a collage of images representing a character from a TV show. These niches have blossomed and expanded. One Tumblr user, who goes by Fairypage, took notice of just how many aesthetics were being defined online, and decided to make the AestheticsWiki ... has her own definition for what an aesthetic is: The stylistically consistent multimodal manifestation of an imagined lifeworld. In other words, “Something is an aesthetic if you can look at an image [or song] and say ‘yeah that belongs there.’”
All style, no substance: the problem of aesthetics in 2023 article on aesthetics in Prospect (magazine)
Aesthetics is no longer an investigative term for the science of beauty and taste, but an umbrella term for online subcultures, a byword for “vibe”. And you can do more than just admire an aesthetic: it’s now something you can be too, if you wear the right clothes and listen to the right playlist. As the wiki itself puts it, “There is currently no dictionary definition that captures the complexity of this phenomenon, which arose in the Internet youth.”
Cottagecore Was Just the Beginning article on aesthetics in The Atlantic:
At this point, the word aesthetic is totally divorced from its academic origins. While Tumblr users mainstreamed it years ago, many teenagers use aesthetic as an all-purpose adjective—“that’s so aesthetic” as a shorthand for “that’s so aesthetically pleasing to me.” But in broader internet parlance, it now means a collection of signifiers or, more precisely, a “vibe.”
Decoding Internet Fashion: 20 Aesthetics for 2023 marketing analysis of internet aesthetics by Ipsos
To understand each aesthetic, we analyzed 8 million posts – including text, images, and videos – related to Angelcore, Art Hoe, Baddie, Clean Girl, Coastal Grandmother, Cottagecore, Dark Academia, E-girl, Emo, Fairycore, Grunge, Indie, Kawaii, Kidcore, Light Academia, Old Money, Skater Girl, Soft Girl, Vintage, and Y2K. Hashtags for each of the aesthetics have generated billions of views and interactions on TikTok, displaying content from influencers, brands, and “normal” platform users. While TikTok generates the most engagement on aesthetics-related posts, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram are also go-to sites to share and discuss content.'
Style at Home: Internet aesthetics: cottagecore vs. cluttercore article in The Detroit News:
The aesthetics tend to be more than just a design choice, sometimes also embodying a fantastical-seeming lifestyle.
Ranking 2023's Internet Aesthetic Trends article in Paper (magazine)
More sources exist, but I believe these are sufficient to show that internet aesthetics (e.g. Corecore, Y2K aesthetic, Light academia, Cottagecore) exist, and have recieved WP:SIGCOV, even if they are conceptually difficult to describe. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really seems like you're conflating the existence and study of aesthetics that happen to be online to the existence of an "internet aesthetic". This is the core OR/SYNTH issue at hand. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This paper details what internet aesthetics are. Just glancing through the abstract and introduction establishes their existence. Photos of Japan (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The paper referred to above states in the Abstract In this study we explore the so-called Internet aesthetics labels applied on heterogenous collections of materials and activities, which are discussed and constructed primarily on the Internet (mainly onInstagram, Tumblr and Pinterest). In contrast to established notions, such as genre, style or subculture, Internet aesthetics are characterized by few conventions, but seem fundamentally open for individual interpretations. (emphasis mine). It fails to define Internet aesthetics in any useful way, in fact it takes a step back from supplying any useful information by stating that it is whatever one wants it to be. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that "so-called" is often used in an ironic sense to cast doubt on something (i.e. implying that something is merely "called" something but isn't actually that thing), but this paper is using "so-called" in the straightforward sense: "used to show that something or someone is commonly designated by the name or term specified".
The paper spends half of its text describing and characterizing internet aesthetics, and arguing that they aren't "styles", "genres", "subcultures", etc. It isn't saying internet aesthetics are whatever you want them to be when it says that they are "fundamentally open for individual interpretations". Rather it is saying that what defines an internet aesthetic is the mood that the individual feels, and that different media affect individuals differently, allowing individuals to select media which set the mood for them.
For instance, a beanie baby might evoke feelings of childhood nostalgia in someone here, while for an old Japanese man Daruma otoshi might evoke feelings of childhood nostalgia. Internet aesthetics are characterized by collections of exemplifying media (songs, images, etc.) that set a certain mood, but are fundamentally open to individuals to include or exclude things that don't evoke that mood for them, rather than being prescriptive (like a style or genre) and being defined based off external, sensorial qualities. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a source assessment table for 20 pf the citations without finding significant coverage of the term Internet aesthetic. I will do the other 21 when time permits. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No article discusses aesthetics and does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No definition of aesthetics - does not mention "intent aesthetic" ✘ No
Vancouver Is Awesome No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No article about Weirdcore ✘ No
Yes Yes No article about micro-trends does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No passing use of the term to help define micro-trend ✘ No
Yes Yes No article about Corecore does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No article about Y2K aesthetic does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No article about frutiger aero, does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetics" at all ✘ No
No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No Dark Academia, Light Academia, & Cottagecore: Breaking Down 3 Popular Internet Aesthetics - uses the term in the headline, but nowhere in the article ✘ No
No article on Academia Aesthetics. does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No No ~ uses the term internet aesthetic without any definition. This seems to be a very fashion specific article ✘ No
No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No mentions internet aesthetics in the author biography, but nowhere esle in this article on cottagecore ✘ No
Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No article about VSCO girl - does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No does not mention internet aesthetics at all ✘ No
paywall ? Unknown
Yes Yes No What Is McBling and How Is it Different From Y2K? - does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No 50 Christina Aguilera Fashion Moments You Forgot You Were Obsessed With - does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No Everything you need to know about e-girls and e-boys, teen gamers who have emerged as the antithesis of Instagram influencers - does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
No No No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
Yes Yes No does not mention "internet aesthetic" ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Thank for you the table, however, it is important to note that "The terms "internet aesthetic" and "aesthetic" are often used interchangeably." (I understand that wikis are generally not reliable, but given this particular wiki is the main place internet aesthetics are documented and categorized (and is referenced in reliable sources) then I feel its page on internet aesthetics helps support basic statements about how the term itself is used.) The problem that we have is this article isn't about the term "internet aesthetic", but the concept, and the concept is widely referred to just as "aesthetics".
Internet aesthetics are just "aesthetics" (in the expanded internet usage of the word) that developed and occur primarily online.
To determine if sources are referring to internet aesthetics you need to consider the context of the article.
As an example, the Vogue article describes both internet and non-internet aesthetics:
Some are old school—Art Deco is listed along with preppy—others are products of the internet, like e-girls and bubblegum bitch
The Vogue article is discussing "aesthetics" (in the internet sense of the word) broadly, so while it could be used to establish the notability of "aesthetics", it wouldn't establish notability of any subsets of "aesthetics" such as "internet aesthetics".
As far as reliable sources that explicitly use the term "internet aesthetics" and give them significant coverage, here are three academic papers:
I believe those three papers, by themselves, are enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The third article also includes the statement
In the past few years, researchers from English, History, Comparative Literature, Sociology, and Culture Studies, among others, have begun interrogating internet aesthetics as cultural phenomena that implicate their own disciplines, as well as the structures of academia writ large.
And appears as though it may be a source for additional articles discussing internet aesthetics. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nylon (magazine) has a series of articles called "Core Club" devoted to covering internet aesthetics:
Whether it's a fashion trend on TikTok or a certain style taking over Instagram, internet aesthetics are always changing online. Our series 'Core Club breaks down the looks that you're starting to see a lot on social media and highlights the people and brands channeling it best.
Extended content
she doubled down on what’s known online as “princesscore,” a style that falls under the “royalcore” internet aesthetic.
...its similarities with cottagecore and how that particular internet aesthetic
No matter what you call it, this internet aesthetic is for those who crave opulence and romance in their everyday life.
Enter: fairycore, the latest internet aesthetic taking the fashion spotlight in all its glittery, warm glory.
In the case of dark academia, its inevitable internet aesthetic opposite is slowly on the rise
Meanwhile, YouTuber Liz Ruth, who did a deep dive on the differences between the two internet aesthetics in a video that she posted in October
...one internet aesthetic is keeping the holiday's spirit in style all year long. Lovecore, which has developed a cult following...
a new internet aesthetic is tapping into childhood nostalgia: kidcore.
Photos of Japan (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Photos of Japan, you've done a great deal of work in finding what I would think are enough sources to save the page or at least provide a "no consensus" option. Since some of your newest finds are tucked away in an "Extended comment" box, hopefully editors will open it before commenting. This has been a long AfD! Randy Kryn (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of the synthesis issue as discussed above: it is correct there are aesthetic trends, that they are localised on Internet communities and critically discussed, but the category as a whole is indefinite, lacks rigorous sourcing based on above source checks, and so the exercise of connecting the dots is largely one undertaken by the editor without any agreed typology. Without a scope it becomes confusing whether the aesthetics of interest refer to those created within and using the medium or popularised and disseminated on subcultures on the Internet. Lots to salvage here on individual trends though. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the "category as a whole is indefinite" which would essentially make this a broad-concept article (WP:BROAD):
A broad-concept article is an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts.
Other example articles are indefinite as well, such as Central Asia and Northern Europe, which similarly have issues with WP:SYNTH. The problem with SYNTH in broad concept articles has been discussed on the talk page, however, SYNTH is ultimately a content issue and not a notability issue unless per WP:SIGCOV the sourcing requires OR in order to write an article.
But an article's subject being broad, vague or abstract does not necessitate that OR is needed to write it, otherwise WP:BROAD wouldn't exist.
In terms of this particular article I believe one potential way the SYNTH issues could be addressed could be:
The definition section limits itself to articles that explicitly discuss "internet aesthetics" (as I've rewritten it to do).
Examples of internet aesthetics are limited to those which have been explicitly described as "internet aesthetics" (there are already several examples that are explicitly described as such)
The history section can include more general sources on the term "aesthetic" and how its usage has evolved in internet parlance.
I believe this is one way that the article could be written to avoid SYNTH while still having enough content to write an article. Photos of Japan (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I came here due to servicing the category "Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts" and found this. Had a look it. If this was a true social movement it would be academically rigourous, studied and would be referenced as such, but it isn't, with plenty of academic references available to support it. Its quite hard to find anything on gbooks except self-published books. Instead its been cobbled together from a set of independent subjects and referenced as such to popular internet sites which essentially makes it WP:OR published by the author. It was moved from draft by him without being referenced. If it had been, it wouldn't made it out. scope_creepTalk 10:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I have replaced the LLM generated definition section with a new section that cites three academic articles. Photos of Japan (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Yes entire study on internet aesthetics ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes contains an entire section discussing internet aesthetics ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes is an entire series of articles on internet aesthetics per its description, 7 of the articles explicitly use the term "internet aesthetic" to describe the subject of the article ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Is an academic blog devoted to the philosophy of aesthetics. The author is an associate professor of philosophy with an interest in aesthetics. The blog's editor in chief is an associate professor of philosophy, and the two assistant editors are both professors of philosophy, all of whom specialize in aesthetics Yes is an entire article devoted to internet aesthetics ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Same blog as before. This article was also co-edited by Aaron Meskin, Head of Philosophy at the University of Georgia, and former Professor of Philosophical Aesthetics at the University of Leeds Yes collection of writings on internet aesthetics written by students (BA, MA, and PhD) of philosophy and two assistant professors of philosophy ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes entire article devoted to how subcultures are being replaced by aesthetics. Previously mentioned Aaron Meskin in the previous source clarifies that the author in this article is referring to internet aesthetics. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Extended content
  • Cottagecore
    • Leyda, Julia; Sulimma, Maria (April 2023). "Pop/Poetry: Dickinson as Remix". Arts. 12 (2): 62. doi:10.3390/arts12020062. ISSN 2076-0752.
    • "Royalcore Is The Internet Aesthetic That's All About Dressing Up Like A Princess". Nylon. 25 February 2021.
    • "Cryptidcore and the joy of discovering mythical creatures in the wild, explained". SCREENSHOT Media.


You have cobbled a series of reference here don't add up to squat as there is no underlying knowledge model linking them together - its all disparate popular culure subjects. It is essentially popular culture junk reporting that has been attached to the term and has no meaning. scope_creepTalk 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no underlying knowledge model linking them together", except the multiple academic papers discussing the underlying knowledge linking them together, presented in the source assessment table right above this. The point of this list is to provide a list of sources that refer to specific things as an "internet aesthetic" to support them being mentioned in the article. Photos of Japan (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2024 (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.