Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spurensicherung 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. Black Kite (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spurensicherung Art[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not 100% sure what this is about, but it's been speedy deleted three times with differing reasons, and I've just declined a g4 because it hasn't been here at AfD. The only source I can access has one mention of the word 'Spurensicherung' in it. Bringing it here for discussion by a wider audience. Peridon (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not having a brick wall to bang my head against to hand, I have read this several times. I think its an article -or essay- about the scientific uses of a (possibly bogus or pet term of one writer) genre of art, in hat the objects collected by the arists could be used by archaologists. My feeng is firstly that the article needs a huge amout of work before it makes sense: and that if boiled down would probably be making a rather trivial point. The use of tangled syntax and jargon to conceal lack of content.TheLongTone (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief article on the subject [1] on German wikipedia. Ie the art, not it's use by archaologists or anthropologists, which is the main topic of the articleTheLongTone (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to work out how this differs from the use of 'objets trouvés'. Peridon (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear difference. An 'object Trouve' or readymade is a a sculpture created out of a found object, : eg Marcel Duchamp's Fountain. Th stuff referred to in the article is more or less what is described (I've done a fairly crude copyedit). I've seen an exhibit in Tate Modern that would certainly come into the category: a collection ofobjects dredged up fom the local foreshore. The important differences are that the objects are presented in a quasi-archeological context, although of course the viewer is left to draw their own conclusions.TheLongTone (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without multiple English-language references it's difficult to tell if this is a term used once in 1974 or if there has been more widespread use of the term. If the former, then this would appear to be original research. My German is less-than-perfect so I can't really tell how well-sourced the German version is. Someone who is able to read academic German will need to go through that article and add sources to this one before we could even determine if this is notable. freshacconci talktalk 17:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; essay on a topic of uncertain notability. Hairhorn (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup. This is about a somewhat obscure but apparently notable form of modern art that claims to use methods similar to those used in forensic science. The German article, de:Spurensicherung (Kunst), has a reasonably detailed bibliography that should pass the notability bar. Sandstein 08:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can think of a lot of artworks that would come under this heading, but the question is whether the term has actually

entered the lexicon of art historical terms, and internet searching only seems to throw up use by one critic.TheLongTone (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2012 (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.