Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audiation


 * 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. S warm  ♠  19:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Audiation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability: the only references are to the work of the person who coined the word, & the article clearly expresses that person's opinion. More like an essay expounding Gordon's views than an encyclopaedia article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - From what I see, there's no article for Edwin Gordon and no other good move target with my searches finding particularly good here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister   talk  06:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk   14:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a dictionary here and opinion piece. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - even less a private dictionary. No sources to establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The word does seem to have received some usage beyond Edwin Gordon:, , , . This is likely not enough to assert notability, though. Daß Wölf (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2015 (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.