Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowd

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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd

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

Appears to be an essay not supported (just one dubious reference about behaviour) ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 14:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our articles are supposed to be essays, i.e. "A composition of moderate length on any particular subject" (OED) This one started in 2004, over 13 years ago, and so has grown by accretion per our editing policy. What it needs is improvement, not deletion, and AfD is not cleanup. Note that there's no shortage of sources for the topic, such as The Crowd, which is so notable that it has its own article. Andrew D. (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever cleanup is needed, the concept of a "crowd" is obviously an encyclopedic topic (which, by the way, is not the same thing as an essay topic – see WP:NOTESSAY). I want to note that this AfD was listed at the Article Rescue Squad. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTESSAY refers to "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic". It does not refer to the essay format in general as that means a piece of prose about a topic – exactly what we expect of an article. Andrew D. (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had understood the nomination to mean it in the sense of a personal essay. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the nominator's argument is the usual complaint that there aren't many sources. Instead of looking for sources per WP:BEFORE, they bring it here with a WP:VAGUEWAVE to an irrelevant policy. Andrew D. (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per above arguments. samee converse 20:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Join the you-know-what. Among other things, it'd be absurd to have Crowd psychology, Crowd control, Wisdom of the crowd, etc. without their parent article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A WP:BEFORE search in Gbooks alone indicates that GNG is met. Some source examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. AfD is not cleanup. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 12 April 2018 (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.