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 no consensus. Rlendog (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract detail

[edit]

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

A literary term that does not seem to be an actual widespread literary term. This particular article reads like an essay, which alone would not be a unfixable problem. However, I can find no sources that actually indicate that this term is a common literary term. Searching both gbooks and gscholar gives me nothing on this concept under this name. Even the "A Glossary of Literay Terms" that is used as a reference makes no mention of this phrase, and has no entry for it. Most of this article is instead just paraphrased from their entry on "concrete and abstract". It would appear that this article is merely OR that the page creator derived from that entry, rather than any sort of established concept. Rorshacma (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into abstract object, which is much the same topic. Note that this is not OR because, as the nomination explains, the content is based upon a particular source: concrete and abstract. Warden (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I meant it was OR more in the sense that they took the information from the Concrete and Abstract entry, and created their own literary term from it. The information may be based on a reliable source, but taking that information and then deriving their own literary term, that is not mentioned anywhere, seemed like it would be considered OR, as WP:SYNTH. I personally don't like the idea of keeping what appears to be a made up term around, even it is just as a redirect. The "A Glossary of Literary Terms" entry should definitely be added to the abstract object article as a source, though. Rorshacma (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 3 October 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.