Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lofty idealism

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. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lofty idealism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There no such separate concept. It is merely a phrase "lofty"+"idealism", to express the concept of extreme (ethical) idealism. The construct is akin to other stable collocations, such as die-hard fan or brutal capitalism. The article does not give a definition (I failed to find one either). The abundant references are merely examples of someone being praised for or accused of "lofty idealism". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that the term has been used at least three times notably, in the context of two US presidents and one Nobel citation. It's very unlikely for this to have been simply an incidental adjective-noun pairing. A quick search shows it having popped up in the titles of other publications, see this article, this article, and the title of this book. 8ty3hree (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ideal (ethics). It is lofty when someone tries to live by his or her ideals, but we don't need another article on that when we already have one that explains the concept. This article only documents the use of this expression, without really explaining why lofty idealism is distinct from ordinary idealism. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no encyclopedic content to merge, and your definition is contestable, not to say unreferenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever can be merged to Ideal (ethics), Idealism, and/or Idealism in international relations, and redirect to the last one, per above. Doesn't actually define the phrase; if it did I suspect it would border on WP:DICDEF. Ansh666 06:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that several sources have used the phrase doesn't make it a notable subject. I can find dozens of sources which use the phrase "vivid imagination" or "artistic perfection", but neither of those expressions are article-worthy. What you need is a source which defines the phrase and discusses its usage, and the people to whom it's been applied. I doubt you'll find such a source, because "lofty idealism" is just an arbitrary combination of words. I don't think there's anything to be merged here, since the article's nothing more than a list of people who have been called lofty idealists. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am with DoctorKubla here. The article does not explain the term, and the citations used do not suggest anything other than emphasis. 'Lofty' is an appropriate pairing with idealism, as 'strong' is with characterisation; we cannot infer from either that the writer is intending to represent something different in nature and meaning from the unembellished word alone. Anyone seeking to understand its usage in the cited examples is going to have to refer to Ideal (ethics). Even if evidence for some special significance of the phrase could be produced, it is difficult to envisage the explanation belonging anywhere other than in that article. I suspect that people would have spoken of a writer's or politician's 'idealism', or 'lofty idealism' more or less interchangeably and it would not reflect anything more than degree. Even when used pejoratively, idealism and lofty idealism both convey much the same sense. --AJHingston (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sign this is a term with a consistent or notable use. Hairhorn (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2013 (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.