Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art for charity


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 07:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Art for charity

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't see how this article is encyclopedic at all--in my opinion, it does not rise above the level of a dictionary definition. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep - it's just a phrase, not a term discussed in its own right or used as a name for a single, specific, notable phenomenon (e.g., Toys for tots) J L G 4 1 0 4  20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I am changing my mind, having thought it over and looked into it. I added a "History" section with a quick reference to a 1933 NYT article. Consider this my Wikimitzvah of the day. Now let's have some more history and examples. I think the "not a name for something" argument, which I put forth earlier, may not have to be absolute. J L G 4 1 0 4  20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Though it may have promise, the stub seems quite dormant. I think there should be an article "x for charity" but that gives specific examples, which this article does not. Therefore if someone can add concrete examples that establish notability, I'm for keeping it.  Valley 2 city  00:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would specific examples help the notability? The term or concept itself ought to be notable. You'll find a concrete example in the article's history--I deleted it because it was basically spam. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Delete, basically per Jlg4104. Although the refs in the article establish that there are specific cases in which the sale of art has charitable goals, I can find no evidence that "art for charity" itself is a distinctive topic worthy of encyclopedic treatment. Anything that can be sold for profit can also be sold to raise money for charities, and I'm really hoping that, for example, Antiques for charity, Books for charity, and Prostitution for charity will turn out to be redlinks. Deor (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh...so...you DON'T want me to put Deor for charity in the mainspace? Drmies (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't be bought, even for charity. Deor (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But are you a work of art?  Ty  03:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been called a "real piece of work" on occasion. I'm not sure whether artwork was what the speakers had in mind, though. Deor (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  23:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a perfectly good little stub, with plenty of potential. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The phenomenon is notable and has, certainly in the UK, encompassed many leading figures of art, e.g. Stella_vine. No doubt in a few years this will be a full article.  Ty  01:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all for keeping such phrases if they denote specific, identifiable movements, organizations, etc. But I'm still failing to see how it's not just a made-up phrase that covers a lot of stuff, and thus isn't therefore, in a kind of weird way, original research. How is this different from "eating for survival" or "shopping for fun"? J L G 4 1 0 4  04:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a distinct identifiable phenomenon and a term which is in widespread use. It can be referenced to usage in secondary sources and is not therefore original research. The exact phrase is not the key point, but the activity which it refers to, i.e. it could be Art given to charity, though the current title is succinct. I'm not sure what your comparisons would cover if they were to be articles, but an article on what food is available in extreme conditions, deserts, jungles, etc., would be viable. As for "shopping for fun", you would have to find sources, which probably exist, to show the significance and effect of this aspect of shopping. However, that's rather off the subject. This would be valid as a List of art given to charity, and if it's valid as a list, there's no reason why it can't also be an article.  Ty  12:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I sort of see what you're saying-- the phrase does indeed come up in a lot of Google searches. Still, there it's not the name of anything in particular, nor does it work for me as an encyclopedia topic because it's just a "convergence" of two (otherwise valid) topics. Maybe my lame analogies weren't helpful (just having fun, no snarkiness meant). But maybe ultimately this a difference in interpretation of what WP is. The problem, to me, is the infinite array of "for charity" permutations you could have, and I'm not sure these are anything more than Charity_(practice) done in one way or another (and the other way around, too-- you could have infinite permutations of "art for..."-- art for peace, art for hunger, art for love, art for protest, etc.). J L G 4 1 0 4  19:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it--"shopping for fun" passes the Google test with a grade three times as high as "art for charity." If Ty claims that it can be referenced in secondary sources, why don't they reference it in secondary sources and add it to the article? Mind you, these cannot be announcement of "art for charity" events--they have to discuss the concept of "art for charity" in some depth, in a non-trivial manner. JLG has graciously added some references--but these don't discuss, they only mention. (PS, JLG, I'm tracking Rosie's eard; it's driving her mom crazy. It's a nice piece of hair, and I might donate it for charity.) Drmies (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, we're getting OT, but... tell your wife at least it's not full body eczema, which is what Lila has been contending with for three of her four months... J L G 4 1 0 4  02:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - per above...Modernist (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally, I don't like the title - it sounds a bit like a slogan, or the name of a movement (which it isn't). Charity art auction and Charity art exhibition are both notable subjects. Combining the two... how about Charity art event?--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposal - Ethicoaestheticist makes a good point. I'd be willing to build an page called "Charity event (arts)" which could then have sections (e.g., concert, art auction, exhibition, other), pretty much just using what's already present in "Art for charity." There should probably be an article called simply "Charity event" or some such. I found Charity_(practice) to be a good start but more historical and philosophical. Charity events are a pretty specific yet common enough practice ("benefit" concerts, dinners, auctions, etc.) to merit perhaps a broader article, but I'm not really up to building a big piece from scratch just now. How does this sound? J L G 4 1 0 4  02:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I see we already have benefit album and benefit concert, so there may need to be a bit more sorting out of things. Still, I think there must be a solution in here somewhere. J L G 4 1 0 4  02:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, try my talk page-- at the bottom is "Charity event (arts) TEST STUB". Still violates the principle that the term itself isn't notable, but... for some reason I'm finding myself wanting to preserve this in some way. One immediate problem is that it presumes a higher-level entry "Charity event", or else other (types) of events. Plus, works of art created for charity are not really "events" so much as the sale of such works might be, and then only in the sense that an "event" is anything that has transpired (as opposed to the sense of an "event" as a special, advertised, organized sort of thing). It's a rought draft! J L G 4 1 0 4  02:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The term doesn't have to be notable. It's not an article about a term: it's an article about an activity. It is the phenomenon which needs to be notable and recognisable, whatever exact form of words one uses to describe it. The article title is simply a convenience so people get an idea what the article is about.  The phenomenon is that a lot of art by leading artists is donated to charity sales, either existing stock, or often created specially for the event. This is regularly featured in the media, hence notable and verifiable, criteria for validating an article. To keep the article focused, I think it should be restricted to "art", rather than expanded to "arts". Here are some angles.  Ty  05:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.