Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstract Realism

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Realism

This has been tagged for a few days now, and it still has no sources, and no real apparent notability. Right now it looks like OR with red links on wikipedia. I may be wrong, and I welcome that if the sources exist, but this should be on AFD for that reason.

There may, in some book, be a real concept of "abstract realism." Whatever that concept is, it needs to have sources here. If there is an abstract realism but it's not the same as what's being referred to here, that is not a reason to keep this topic (unless someone does the work to reform it completely). Shadowjams (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an OR essay. If the concept is notable it can be created again, but it would need a fundamental rewrite if kept. Deleting the page can't hurt since when somebody wants to come along and write about abstract realism in an encyclopedic style using sources, there will be nothing to stop them. Themfromspace (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom. It's a bit of OR followed by a bunch of redlinks. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I didn't find two books that used this term to refer to the same thing. Typically they're using the term to refer to a particular person's ideas. WillOakland (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Well sourced topic it seems [1] (book with section on topic), [2] (another book), [3] defines the term and [4] references a paper solely on this topic. It may well be that some of these are different definitions (too far from my field to tell) but they look pretty similar to me. Article sucks however. Hobit (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a Google search suggests that the term is in use, but not in such a definite or coherent way as to make an article possible at present. As a neologism, it doesn't pass WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. See, for instance, this fairly general piece of art-speak, including:

"...many artist are now working in what is a mixture of the two, what I and others have come to call abstract realism. This abstract realism is a form of art that sits between realistic depiction of the world and a non representational abstraction. No longer are the two separate and opposed, but come together to strengthen each other and form an alloy. The artist who can make realistic images, but takes that skill and creates a more abstract painting that is greater than sum of them both."

See also this satirical definition:

"Abstract Realism is an Art Movement for the twenty-first century and it is nothing that has not been done in the twentieth. It's got balls and it's a load of bollocks. It says too much and says nothing at all. It is Post Post-Modern. Abstract Realism is a movement of multiple manifestos."

I saw this article come in as a new page: I didn't like the look of it because of all the red-links, which made me fear it might be the start of a promotional walled garden of perhaps non-notable artists. However it was clearly too soon to tag it, so I just gave the author a welcome paragraph with links to the requirements for notability and independent sources. I did not intend to frighten him off, but it seems to have had that effect; perhaps he knows that the independent references are not available. This gallery notice featuring some of the names from the article, suggests my fears may have been right.

Conclusion: the movement may develop into something worth an article, but not yet, and anyway this isn't it. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2009 (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.