Deletion of List of found art

Comment: First, I think the definition of found art within the article is sufficiently definite. It simply states that what follows is a list of artworks that are found objects. The question then becomes whether such a list is |verifiable. Are there reliable secondary sources that could establish pieces of art as found objects or objets trouvées? Based on a cursory search, I believe the answer is yes. Take, for example http://www.moma.org/collection/theme.php?theme_id=10135 this source or http://books.google.ae/books?id=35UB3HB9TysC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=history+of+objet+trouvé&source=bl&ots=307QnUPTJ0&sig=sw_ZsaxkFpO_WAxNClI1HOXXm9Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OAyAUObBEc3-rAfOm4HoAw&sqi=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20objet%20trouvé&f=false this book. There may be debate about whether a particular artwork is objet trouvé, but if there is it can be reflected in the text in an encyclopedic tone, as usual. While this list may not be well-constructed at present, it is verifiable, and it appears to meet the  guidelines; there are plenty of reliable sources that directly cover found objects, and there are enough of them to potentially make a list useful to readers. A listing of them in the found object article may be unwieldy. Second, to address a concern raised above, I don't think  applies to this case. That guideline refers to indiscriminate plot summaries, lyrics databases and listings of statistics. This article is none of those. I would support a move to '''List of found object art''', since it's evident that "found object" is the correct term for this kind of art. But for the reasons above I believe at this time that the verdict should be keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:GNG||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)