Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social practice


 * 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 without prejudice. There's a weak consensus to delete this article but per Piotrus's comment, I'm going to close this per WP:TNT. Yes I know it's not a policy or guideline but this way if someone wishes to write a sourced NPOV article about this subject, it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Social practice

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The only apparent justification for this article is that a workshop on "Social Practices" is offered at the California College of the Arts. The term itself is a somewhat vague method of describing a number of practices and these topics are covered elsewhere. There are no sources available to support the use of this term as a specific practice and this very much falls under WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:OR.  freshacconci  talk talk  13:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — freshacconci  talk talk  13:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The term "social practice" is used in Mao Zedong's 1963 essay "Where do correct ideas come from?", so it is not a neologism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, Mao wasn't speaking about art and he wrote that in 1963. This is a term coined in the 21st century about contemporary art, thus a neologism in that context. Neologism doesn't necessarily mean creating a brand-new word.  freshacconci  talk talk  00:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO, WP:DICDEF, and WP:OR. The article largely reads like a promotion for the graduate program at the California College of the Arts and Portland State University's annual conference.  The other part of it reads like a simple definition of the term.  What's left (in the Definition portion of the article) is original research-- it contains unsourced descriptions of the term and it is supposedly different from other terms. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article is about an (apparently new) art form called social practice art, as defined in this article. If this article is kept, it should be renamed social practice art to align with its definition in the article. This art form has no apparent relationship to Mao’s ideas. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - if kept, move per Life of Riley. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The article is a mess, and was a mess since it was first created. While the term "social practice" is notable and should be written about, I doubt that anything from the current disaster that is our page on the subject is even salvageable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 02:16, 24 August 2011 (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.