- 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 keep. Inclement weather ahead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Stimulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD was reverted without improvement. All original research since 2004. This seems to be a coatrack article, with not a shred of academic support (reliable sources inline). OED provides three definitions, of which this article addresses only the third without disambiguation. Reversion of a PROD sweeps the article back into the backlog without any improvement. Rhadow (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a mechanistic stream of PRODs, then immediate AfDs, of any and all articles that Rhadow (talk · contribs) sees as unsourced. Regardless of BEFORE, regardless of the significance of the topic. And of course, they don't actually edit content themselves.
- This is not a useful way to work to build the project. WP:COMPETENT editors have already recognised this. If this editor cannot, the they should not be bulk tagging articles for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. There is no evidence that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE, in which case they would have seen that this is an abundantly notable topic. bd2412 T 02:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Article is unsourced and based on original research, with a random image thrown in that has no connection to the topic. In dire need of cleanup. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 02:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, not sure why nominator and others state that this article is unsourced (or "with not a shred of academic support"), the following reference (or it could be further reading?) has been at the bottom of the article since december 2015 (i have just placed it into a "References" section): D.A.Booth, O.Sharpe, R.P.J.Freeman, M.T. Conner (2011) Insight into sight, touch, taste and smell by multiple discrminations from norm. Seeing and Perceiving 24, 485-511,639, Seeing and Perceiving (now called Multisensory Research) is an academic journal, see here, that said agree that article needs cleanup, in itself not a reason for deletion. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. Needs to be cleaned up or turned into a disambiguation page as Jarble suggested on the talk page, but this is a core encyclopaedic topic that clearly needs to exist in some form or other. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Joe Roe. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The article itself is not great, but would make sense as a disambiguation page.Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2017 (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.