Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meditative art

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meditative art[edit]

I would like to see more people discuss this page, it has been linked on needs attention for over a year, and I have a suspicion this is not a widely accepted term, but I am not an expert. cohesion | talk 08:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A laudable aim, but this isn't the place for that discussion - unless you are proposing that it be deleted. As to the use of the term, it is used, but not widely, and it certainly isn't the "standard" nomenclature. Usually, you will find the term abstract minimalist used (or simply abstract expressionist). People like Josef Albers and Mark Rothko in particular are absent from this article, as is Barnett Newman - so it could do with considerable expansion. But what's there is good. What are you proposing - merging it into something? Because there's too much there to really consider deletion. Grutness...wha? 12:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion was one of the possibilities in mind, if it turned out this was a completely fabricated term for example, since it's not, merging information or some other action probably would be best. - cohesion | talk 17:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've only come across it a couple of times in three years of part time work as an arts reviewer - and in that business it's difficult to say what's a neologism and what's real. A move to Monochromatic art (with links to things like Grisaille and expansion to cover more than just 20th century art) might be the best solution, since that term is widely used. It's probably too big to merge into abstract expressionism. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 11 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.