Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Found objects

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 of the debate was Move Found objects to Found object per new proposal after rewrite. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found objects

This is a poorly written stray from the main article Found art. The Talk:Found objects states that there is some misleading info contained in this. There is no info to merge. Suggest that this redirects to Found art Clubmarx | Talk 00:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Found art per nom. Gw e rnol 00:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Beno1000 00:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that isn't in Found art, and is factually correct (unlike the part about Duchamp and urinals) and then redirect there. Jude (talk,contribs,email)
Merge to Found art per Gwernol. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 04:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jude M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wooly writing and Found art is much better. Tyrenius 06:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Found art, as per nom. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Found art. JIP | Talk 08:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above +Hexagon1 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, on re-read, this is abolute crap. +Hexagon1 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article cannot be merged, basically because from beginning to end it is inaccurate woffle, and putting any bit of it into another article would weaken that article. Could the people saying "Merge" kindly look at the article again and the talk page. The only thing for this article is a clean and total "Delete". If editors are not sufficiently acquainted with the subject matter to recognise the deficiency of this article, I suggest they do not express an opinion on what should happen to its content. Please read the nom. Tyrenius 10:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tyrenius that there is nothing salvageable here; simply turn it into a redirect. David Sneek 11:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to found art, it is an element of found art and as such should not be seperate. Benjaminstewart05 12:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please specify exactly which content you think is worthwhile merging (that is not already covered in Found art), because I can't find any! I certainly agree a redirect would be useful. Tyrenius 16:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically the first paragraph or so, but I think that if edited slightly, all of it has a place under a seperate subheading in found art. But a redirect would be just as good if only a little bit can be merged, (some would have to be merged - look at the found art article. Benjaminstewart05 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First para is covered much more accurately in first para of Found art. Found objects says,"pebbles, industrial cast-offs, candy wrappers" (these are not very typical examples, at least pebbles and sweet wrappers!), "but which are nonetheless found to have aesthetic appeal" (Duchamp specifically refuted this), "In the mid-20th century, Picasso led the way by using a basket and handlebars from a bicycle to create the armature for an appealing goat sculpture" (Picasso's She-goat was 1950, by which time it is hardly "leading the way" in the use of found objects—30 years too late; the handlebar was not used for this, but, with a saddle, to make a bull's head in 1943), and so it goes on.... Tyrenius 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and subsequently redirect). While it is an element of found art, there is nothing obviously worth merging. — Haeleth Talk
~~As per Tyrenius, Delete and destroy. I guess a redirect would be useful.~~ Vizjim 16:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing vote following rewrite (see below). Vizjim 08:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. TheMadBaron 19:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to found art. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten

I've added this sub-heading because I've attempted an overhaul of the article. As it was written, it only discussed found objects with relevance to art, yet they are equally relevant to music, so a simple redirect is not a good idea. However, as the article was previously there was no mention of music at all. The article is a perfectly valid subject for an article, though it needs to be strongly tied in with the related subject at found art, probably using {{seemain}} or similar, and needs to be moved to found object, singular, which is currently a redirect. It also needs, though, to be just as storngly tied in with music. If you've already voted, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your stance based on what the article looks like now. Grutness...wha? 01:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the latest version, but again there's nothing in Found objects that's not already in Found art - the latter article includes a section on Found sounds in music. I'm still not seeing any compelling reason not to just redirect this page to Found art. Sorry, Gw e rnol 01:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'd suggest moving the information on found objects in music to this page - it really doesn't have much relevance to found art. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are now assessing the article on a different basis. The main nom objections were: 1)poorly written 2) stray from the main article Found art 3)misleading info 4)no info to merge. None of these applies any more, and there are other considerations. a)should Found art also cover the music info (I would say no—there should be some equivalent such as Found music or Found objects in music b)Should there be a Found object article covering the range of uses: art, music, what else—theatre? architecture? interior design? etc. I think there is a strong case for this. I have left messages on the talk pages of both WikiProject Arts and WikiProject Visual arts and suggest the best solution now may be to hand the issue over to the project(s), so that any decision can be integrated in a wider arts approach, rather than assessed in isolation. Tyrenius 02:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For found objects in music there are of course musique concrète and sampling (music)... I agree that it would be a good idea to have a more general discussion on how to organize this subject, also because I don't like it that common terms like readymade and objet trouvé redirect to the far less common found art. Personally I think it would be best to have an introduction at found art, which links to articles on found objects in music (musique concrète), in plastic arts (readymade) and film (found footage - we don't even have that!). David Sneek 10:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for delete - Because of the rewrite and the other issues that have been brought up, it seemed like this should no longer be deleted. However I don't think the plural form Found objects is the right place, the singular Found object seems to be better. Right now, Found object is a redirect to Found art. I'd like to propose:

- to Move the Found objects page to Found object

- to redirect the Found objects page to Found object

I'd add this comment to the talk page of Found objects as well. Clubmarx | Talk 19:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this proposal. Tyrenius 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree with this suggestion, and further suggest that if a separate article on the use of found objects in music is created, then Found sound might be the best name - that too currently redirects to Found art. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now - CNichols 19:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agree with above proposal. -- T.o.n.y 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the proposal above. Ziggurat 02:26, 18 May 2006 (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.