Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of found 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 in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Most of the discussion here seems to hinge on the inclusion criteria for the list. How do we define found object art, and how do we know if something is found object art or not? If clear inclusion criteria cannot be agreed upon, then this article may need to be deleted. However, Batard0's argument makes some sense, and could be used as a jumping off point for further discussion. I would also encourage a discussion on the article talk page to move this article to a new title. -Scottywong | talk _ 16:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

List of found art

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no such commonly used art term as "Found art", therefore the inclusion criteria is unclear (and there was no consensus to rename the list article 'List of art containing found objects', which in itself would have been a messy title). Most of this list is about Duchamp's 'Readymades', which already have a separate article Readymades of Marcel Duchamp. The Man Ray art can easily be mentioned/listed at Found object. Basically this list article serves no useful purpose. Sionk (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I see no reason in principle why we couldn't have a "list of found artworks" containing notable examples of found art, if there were enough works with Wikipedia articles to merit a list. But I'm not sure how many of these entries actually are found art (Michael Craig Martin is normally associated with conceptual art rather than found art.) This article currently doesn't add much, if anything, to the articles found object (which contains a significantly better list of artists working with found objects) and Readymades of Marcel Duchamp. So I'm leaning towards delete, but if this could be made into a more substantial list, I might change my mind. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One can't object to individual entries on List of found art that appear at Found object. Hyacinth (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's redundant to have them in both places, and if the two lists are essentially the same, one should certainly be deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria may be unclear if it wasn't described at the top of the list. Hyacinth (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "List of art containing found objects" would not target the list to found objects because everything from simple collage paintings (such as playing cards in Picasso still lifes) to sculpture/assemblages (Robert Rauschenberg's "combine" sculpture/paintings, Joseph Cornell's shadowboxes) to most installation art "contain" found objects. That would not be a meaningful list at all, as it is too widespread a technique, and may or may not even be a focal point of the work in question; one might as well have a list of art containing the color mauve. The point of this list is instead supposed to be art that is a found object. Duchamp is just the beginning of this form of art (and many art historians would say, actually detached from it as it is known now because he did it for other reasons than contemporary practitioners). I can't say how many individual found art works merit their own articles, and whatever its potential as a list topic, I can't speak much for the current list as worth maintaining for now rather than merging to found object. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is not titled nor does it read "List of art containing found objects". Hyacinth (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Try reading the very first sentence of the nomination. postdlf (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the first and second sentences. I didn't intend to re-launch a discussion here about the name of the article. Sionk (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please replace the text you removed and then just use to strike it out. It's bad form to remove comments after other users have already responded to it. postdlf (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No text was removed. I simply moved my reason for proposing deletion so it came before the side-anecdote about the article name-change. Sorry for any confusion! Sionk (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't read it carefully enough! postdlf (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The claim that found art is not a "commonly used art term" seems to be false. Warden (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the words "Found art" pop up in a google search, but they rarely mean the same thing. I've never seen the phrase in a dictionary of art, for example, unlike 'objet trouv&eacute;', 'found object' or 'readymade'. Sionk (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Appreciate what the nominator is getting at. "Found art" is something that appears in reliable sources, as per our article on Found object. But trying to determine what constitutes "found", let alone what constitutes "art", is very difficult and subjective in this particular area. We shouldn't put inclusion in this list to the whims of one or two reliable sources. There are literally hundreds and thousands of things that might fit here, or merely dozens, because the inclusion criteria is so impossibly vague. Vcessayist (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all listcruft. What constitutes 'found art'?  The inclusion criteria seem to be vague and subjective.  A good list has non-subjective and unambigious inclusion criteria. Roodog2k (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if is a commonly used art term, the criteria for inclusion of a piece is far too vague to allow this article to serve any useful purpose. The list of artists on the page Found object accomplishes essentially the same goal as this page in a cleaner and more manageable fashion. --Tdl1060 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is less important to List "found art" than to define it. Furthermore the correct term is "found object" or "objet trouvé". The concept embodied in the term is more associated with Marcel Duchamp than with anyone else. The found object article provides sufficient article space to properly address the significance embodied in the term. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: First, I think the definition of found art within the article is sufficiently definite. It simply states that what follows is a list of artworks that are found objects. The question then becomes whether such a list is verifiable. Are there reliable secondary sources that could establish pieces of art as found objects or objets trouvées? Based on a cursory search, I believe the answer is yes. Take, for example this source or this book. There may be debate about whether a particular artwork is objet trouvé, but if there is it can be reflected in the text in an encyclopedic tone, as usual. While this list may not be well-constructed at present, it is verifiable, and it appears to meet the WP:GNG guidelines; there are plenty of reliable sources that directly cover found objects, and there are enough of them to potentially make a list useful to readers. A listing of them in the found object article may be unwieldy. Second, to address a concern raised above, I don't think WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to this case. That guideline refers to indiscriminate plot summaries, lyrics databases and listings of statistics. This article is none of those. I would support a move to List of found object art, since it's evident that "found object" is the correct term for this kind of art. But for the reasons above I believe at this time that the verdict should be keep. --Batard0 (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2012 (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.