Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstract figurative

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. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract figurative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Created three years ago, still no sources. Appears to be a Wikipedia invented concept/syllogism. Checked google books and while there is about 309 hits for "Abstract figurative" [1] none of them appear to actually talk about anything like this, rather just use the two words next to each other (like "something abstract, figurative something else")  Volunteer Marek  03:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 13. Snotbot  t • c »  04:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A quick Google search reveals a number of people describing themselves as abstract figurative artists, e.g., http://www.josephyork.com, and some online art stores use the term as a category of art, e.g., http://www.absolutearts.com/portfolio/themes/Abstract_Figurative.html. But I could not find any scholarly articles or news articles about this category. Mark viking (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources. First created in 2009 as a promotional article (see the External Links section) for the site nmotamed.com by User:Motamedd. It's original research for a dictionary definition of a neologism that has remained uncited on Wikipedia for three years. There is no indication that the concept is notable anywhere outside Wikipedia.--xanchester (t) 05:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. An unnecessary neologism.--Collingwood (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Several days ago (Nov 10) I tagged this for speedy deletion as nonsense. The second sentence of the article admitted that the proposed term might be a contradiction, which is true, as anyone in the arts would know: therefore the article made no sense. Another problem with a Google search is that on the internet, "Figurative Art" often means "the Human Figure in Art" rather than the dictionary meaning of literal vs. figurative, which remains the academic art namespace meaning of Figurative Art: realistic but metaphorical. The Google hits include not only those correctly discussing abstract and figurative as opposites, but also those that identify themselves as abstract figurative artists because they do more abstract, or expressive human figures rather than traditional realism. Some writers also misuse figurative when they actually mean figural. FigureArtist (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2012 (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.