Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formal abstraction

Formal abstraction

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

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 freshacconci talktalk 19:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 19:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an unnecessary, and redundant hypothesis and violation of WP:OR...Modernist (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research. Edward321 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article does not appear to make much sense, that is also because a large part, including the introduction, was 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. here and 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. --Lambiam 08:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Bus stop (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]