Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychocinetic 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 merge to interactive art. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychocinetic Art

Psychocinetic Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unsupported by sources, Google search yields nothing. Possible test page. JNW (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Sounds highly implausible, unsupported by evidence. Basie (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge / redirect. Interactive art seems like a better home for this topic. Cheers, Basie (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I would be inclined to consider this if there was a single artwork or artist offered as an example, if the article had been written by somebody with more than one edit to his name, or if a Google search turned up anything to substantiate. Sadly not. --Lockley (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Merge / redirect. Changed my mind. This genre is already covered in wikipedia within the article Interactive art. The original version of the page asserts that this psychocinetic genre has nothing to do with interactivity because the person who is facing the object is passive, but this doesn't make sense, either logically or from the standpoint of how these art pieces actually perform. So I'd advocate a merge / redirect. --Lockley (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The title of the page is obviously misspelled. it should be psychokinetic art. Couldn't find anything online, but perhaps this is one of the many things only covered on paper. Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Agree with possible misspelled psychokinetic art, perhaps dual spelling is possible. Also problems with broken English. Found one reference: Duncan, Frederick S. (Spring, 1975). "Kinetic Art: On My Psychokinematic Objects". Leonardo. 8 (2). The MIT Press: 97–101. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1572950. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). IMO the article is of marginal interest. But none of these issues provide sufficient reason for deletion. I would give the article the benefit of doubt and vote keep, at least for the moment. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Also found http://www.georgekhut.com/movie/, which has a short movie showing examples of George Khut's work. Basically he's tracking heart rate and respiratory patterns and incorporating them into his art. However, he calls it "body-focused interactive art systems", and misspells it to boot. I think the words psychokinetic and psychokinematic are at best jargon, at worst potentially misleading. Recommend merging any notable content on the subject with interactive art (changed vote). Cheers, Basie (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  Comment If the term is indeed valid, that's still not much to go on. Do these references establish notability for the art form? JNW (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 02:03, 9 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.