Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play 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   delete. Delete arguments are more numerous and more convincing, particularly as the one keep voter admits that we lack secondary sources. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if this art movement becomes more notable and receives coverage in reliable sources in the future. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Play art

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

This has been tagged for original research and other problems for over a year with no improvements. This completely falls under original research. Perhaps some information could be relocated under different articles (Interactive art, relational art etc) but the term itself appears to be a neologism  freshacconci  talk talk  18:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — freshacconci  talk talk  18:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There are plenty of references to a "ludic" element in art, as it is often called, but claims to be a distinct art form are not supported by the article. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nice idea, but it's based entirely on the Play Art website, which pulls together these disparate strands to try to create a movement. Without secondary sources referencing this movement, and I can find none, this is a non-starter. Original research and non-notable. Fences and windows (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Play Art is an “underground” art movement with hundreds of artists involved. Conventional art museums shy away from this art form since they cannot deal with the deterioration that is caused by playful interactivity.  There is also a negative attitude towards play.  Consequently there are no further secondary sources besides the one listed; Flemming (http://www.bookfinder.com/author/hanns-theodor-flemming). There are numerous Websites by artists and other sources that contain references to play art, even as titles.  One external link is listed. Since they do not offer any explanations they are of no real interest.  A Google search for “play art” yields 415,000 results. Last but not least, the city of Berlin was in the beginning stages of building a specific Museum of Play Art.  Because of the worldwide economic crisis this project may never happen.  The international list of artists was continuously growing and reached more than 1,000. This is a condensed summery of reasons why the Play Art entry should not be deleted. Blackletters (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A substantial number of those Google hits refer to children playing, a play called "Art", and other irrelevant hits across punctuation marks. A tiny, tiny number actually refer to the movement. The Flemming book link you posted doesn't mention Play Art. Do you have any sources on the museum; we can't just take your word for it. If you want to include mention of links being play and art using reliable sources like this and without any POV pushing of this non-notable institution, do it at Play (activity). Fences and windows (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There were a number of play art exhibitions in Berlin and elsewhere. I will get back to you as soon as possible. Blackletters (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I remain unconvinced. We play music and we do art work...Modernist (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The term isn't a neologism: a 1977 glossary of art terms states that "the expressions 'Game Art', 'Toy Art', 'Play Art' and 'Ludic Art' refer, in most instances, to games, toys and playthings made by artists; an exhibition of such works entitled 'Play Orbit' was held in 1969 at the ICA, London." A 1992 reprint also contains the term: . Herbert Read wanted the ICA to be an "adult play centre" and in 2008 a conference was held on that theme . Admittedly, none of that's got anything to do with the content of this article, and the claim that it's "a new art form" certainly doesn't hold up.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good finds. All great material for a section of Play (activity). Fences and windows (talk) 17:20, 10 May 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.