Principle of abstraction: 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, L iz 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.  Again , article has no sources at all.  For now, I will go with delete.  - Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Here is a chapter on the specific "principle of abstraction" as discussed by Gottlob and Frege.  If it merits a whole 24-page chapter in an academic philosophy book, it's almost certainly possible to write an article on it.  A search of Google Scholar with Bertrand Russell's name attached turns up plenty of other results as well.  Frege and Russell are certainly both highly notable philosophers, if a concept is being discussed by the two of them we can at the very least write about what secondary sources say that the two of them had to say about it.  Psychastes ( talk ) 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The mere existence of a reference with that title is insufficient to show that the topic is better served by a dedicated article rather than being covered in an article with a broader scope, e.g., Bertrand Russell's philosophical views , Russell's paradox , Logicism , etc.  And the existing text is bad enough to call for WP:TNT .  XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that this is probably not a great standalone article, and probably won't ever be unless someone who is really into early 20th century analytic philosophy decides to flesh it out in detail, but that's a better argument for a redirect with possibilities than for deletion.  WP:TNT seems unnecessary, there's nothing wrong with the article like copyright violations in the history or anything, and at least "principle of abstraction" could be categorized as a concept in various philosophy categories per WP:INCOMPATIBLE where the target page isn't a principle or a concept.  And the fact that a full article likely won't ever be written doesn't change the fact that it could be.  Psychastes ( talk ) 19:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So, Psychastes , what would you suggest as a Redirect target article then?  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hm, there doesn't seem to be much on Bertrand Russell's philosophical views right now that it could be pointed to (though if there were that might be an okay target...), so I think Abstraction#In_philosophy would probably be the best for now?  Psychastes ( talk ) 04:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:03, 18 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete