Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formal abstraction: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:25, 14 July 2011

Latest revision as of 20:08, 6 February 2023

(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)

Line 10:

:{{la|Formal abstraction}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formal abstraction|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 7#{{anchorencode:Formal abstraction}}|View log]]</noinclude>)

:({{Find sources|Formal abstraction}})

I had nominated this for speedy delete for copyvio. The offending text was removed and the speedy delete tag was removed leaving this mess. This is unsourced original research and is no longer even a complete article (not that it was good to begin with). If ''anything'' in this is worth keeping it can merged elsewhere. This is a theory by one art historian with little apparent traction elsewhere [[User:Freshacconci|<b><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#000000;">freshacconci</FONTspan></b>]][[User talk:Freshacconci|<b><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#B22222;"> talk</FONTspan><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</FONTspan></b>]] 19:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts|list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small><small>—[[User:Freshacconci|<b><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#000000;">freshacconci</FONTspan></b>]][[User talk:Freshacconci|<b><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#B22222;"> talk</FONTspan><FONTspan COLORstyle="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</FONTspan></b>]] 19:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)</small>

*'''Delete''' Looks like an unnecessary, and redundant hypothesis and violation of [[WP:OR]]...[[User:Modernist|Modernist]] ([[User talk:Modernist|talk]]) 19:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' Unsourced original research. [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] ([[User talk:Edward321|talk]]) 03:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. If the article does not appear to make much sense, that is also because a large part, including the introduction, was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Formal_abstraction&diff=next&oldid=438286740 removed in one fell swoop] as being a copyvio. While the article as it is (and was) is solely based on (an interpretation of) the views of one single art historian, the concept of "formal abstraction" in classifying [[abstract art]] did not originate with him and is not totally non-notable; see e.g. [http://books.google.com/books?id=4kZQAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Formal+abstraction%22&dq=%22Formal+abstraction%22&hl=en&ei=sb0WTuSgJcOSOoS25fUI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBw here] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=W3oMAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Formal+abstraction%22&dq=%22Formal+abstraction%22&hl=en&ei=sb0WTuSgJcOSOoS25fUI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=20&ved=0CIoBEOgBMBM here]. As such it might conceivably be the subject of a section in our article on [[Abstract art]], or, like [[Geometric abstraction]], even have its own article. However, the contents of the present article cannot be salvaged. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 08:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

*'''Delete.''' If [[Formal abstraction]] has a definition I think it should be added to the [[Abstract art]] article. But after reading the ''Formal abstraction'' article, I still don't know what that definition is. I find any explanation given thus far incomprehensible to me at least. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 11:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>