Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thematic abstraction


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thematic abstraction

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Virtually identical to Formal abstraction which is up for deletion as original research. This has references as does the other article (added by the same editor) by WP:OR as does possibly WP:SYNTH at this point. Anything useful in this or Formal abstraction can be merged eslewhere.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — freshacconci  talk talk  20:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. See WP:OR...Modernist (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. If Thematic abstraction has a definition I think it should be added to the Abstract art article. But after reading the Thematic abstraction article, I still don't know what that definition is. I find any explanation given thus far incomprehensible to me at least. Bus stop (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE - there is plenty of scholarly research on the topic, and there are many books discussing the topic. Find an expert and rescue it. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Did you actually read those ghits before posting your comment? None of them have anything to do with visual art, so no, there do not appear to be any books discussing this topic.  freshacconci  talk talk  13:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is contending that "Thematic abstraction" is a term that relates to the visual arts. All of the sources given are offline. None of the citations are providing the term used in a sentence. And worst of all no attempt is made to define the term. What is it? Are we going to have an article that hints that a term exists—but nothing beyond that? We have to know what "Thematic abstraction" is. And we have to know what it is in the visual arts. We are talking about art. Geometric abstraction has significance. Lyrical abstraction has significance. That doesn't mean these terms have to be defined conclusively. But we should have a ballpark definition of what the term refers to. Can anybody offer a clue in plain English as to what this term might designate in the visual arts? I would rather not see the article deleted if the term has some meaning. Bus stop (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. As I mention below google and google scholar hits are listing uses of "thematic abstraction" as a description not a genre as indicated in the article. There's a big difference. And yes, I did check google and my university library database to see if there was any use of this term the way it is being used in this artcle before I nominated it for deletion.  freshacconci  talk talk  13:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, seems to be something else. Hit the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Major newspapers refer to this type of artwork as "thematic abstraction".  So its a real genre and should thus be covered.  Most of those articles are hidden behind paywalls.  But read the summaries that appear.    D r e a m Focus  11:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, no. Those google hits are mainly using "thematic abstraction" in a descriptive way, they are not referring to a supposed genre of abstraction. The way the term is being used in this article is a neologism and is unsupported.  freshacconci  talk talk  13:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. C'mon. Did you actually read any of those ghits? The second one states "Bush, the practical candidate with the common touch, is running a campaign of thematic abstraction". Seriously?  freshacconci  talk talk  13:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not every thing that appeared was relevant. Add in the word "art" to the search if you want to eliminate some bad results.  Some news sources do refer to this is a type of artwork though.   D r e a m Focus  22:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Best bets in DC Pay-Per-View - The Sun - ProQuest Archiver - Apr 24, 1981 what is long thought to be the embodiment of the first formal and thematic abstraction in modern art will be dis played from Sunday through August 2.
 * Thus my mistake. formal abstraction and thematic abstraction are just descriptions of the modern art, not actual types.


 * When I Google for "thematic abstraction" AND "textbook" to see if its taught in art classes or not I find some results. But these are all showing it as a concept, part of the class, not a genre.   D r e a m Focus  22:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as not being based upon reliable sources. Before the tedium of liberal arts prose set in, I did look over the (non Bush related) articles that were provided. None of them do anything more than use these two words together, no exposition on what it might mean (beyond it's simple dictionary compound meaning, intelligible to anyone who knows what both words are), nothing upon which to build an article. This style of argumentation is difficult to approach with good faith, and is deeply detrimental to the quality of these discussions.  It takes far longer to refute these claims, however hollow they may be, than it does to make a google search and link it. For example, "pineapple hat" gets 17 hits, almost as many as thematic abstraction.  But does it mean anything?  Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: the article claims the topic to be a subset of abstract art, but I cannot find any sources that discuss 'thematic abstraction' in such a context. There is therefore a strong suspicion that the entire topic is WP:OR. Can anybody confirm that the topic, as defined by the article (as opposed to general usage of the term), actually exists in reliable sources? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.