Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principle of abstraction

Principle of abstraction

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

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

Insufficient content to determine article subject. Existing content is unclear. No sources given.

WP:BEFORE search is complicated. Most uses of the phrase are in reference to philosophy of Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell. Admittedly, I am having a hard time understanding their meaning of this term. See, eg.

Fine, Kit (2002). The Limits of Abstraction. Oxford University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-19-924618-2.
Angelelli, Ignacio (2004). "Adventures of abstraction". In Coniglione, Francesco; Poli, Roberto; Rollinger, Robin D. (eds.). Idealization XI: Historical Studies on Abstraction and Idealization. BRILL. pp. 9–35. doi:10.1163/9789004333215_003. ISBN 978-90-04-33321-5.
Beaney, Michael (2010-12-22). "Analysis and abstraction principles in Russell and Frege". The Analytic Turn: Analysis in Early Analytic Philosophy and Phenomenology. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203939703. ISBN 978-1-134-17805-6.

Mauri Leppänen seems to have independently developed her own meaning for the phrase.

Viola, Ivan; Chen, Min; Isenberg, Tobias (2020-07-30). "Visual Abstraction" (PDF). In Chen, Min; Hauser, Helwig; Rheingans, Penny; Scheuermann, Gerik (eds.). Foundations of Data Visualization. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. p. 15–37. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-34444-3_2. hdl:10754/660648. ISBN 978-3-030-34443-6.
Leppänen, Mauri (2007). "Towards an Abstraction Ontology". In Duží, Marie; Jaakkola, Hannu; Kiyoki, Yasushi; Kangassalo, Hannu (eds.). Information modelling and knowledge bases XVIII (PDF). Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. Vol. 154. Amsterdam: IOS Press. p. 166-185. ISBN 978-1-58603-710-9. ISSN 0922-6389. OCLC 124083393.

While this is dense material that I have not fully grasped, I am sufficiently persuaded that their meaning is not closely related to the current content of this article, and so is irrelevant to this discussion. Daask (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourcing and the article sucks as well anyway. Nothing of value will be lost. Macktheknifeau (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A phrase used in various ways in different, equally dense subjects, each of which would be better covered in another article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While several editors have voiced support for Deletion, there is a list of possible sources that I'm not confident have been examined so I'm relisting this discussion for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search shows a lot of unrelated contents, making the subject hard to grasp their role and even existence. Most uses are in reference to Gottlob Frege's philosophical views. For now, I will go with delete. -Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]