Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canvas ceiling


 * 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 redirect to Glass ceiling. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Canvas ceiling

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is nothing to indicate that this is a notable concept with long-term encyclopedic value. It appears to have been coined in a 2020 article that the article creator has been WP:REFSPAMming across Wikipedia: '''Lee, Eun Su; Szkudlarek, Betina; Nguyen, Duc Cuong; Nardon, Luciara (April 2020). "Unveiling the Canvas Ceiling : A Multidisciplinary Literature Review of Refugee Employment and Workforce Integration". International Journal of Management Reviews. 22 (2): 193–216.''' Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes GNG and WP:NEO. This is a neologism, and its true that the concept has been added through REFSPAming. However, it does meet SIGCOV in that multiple scholarly publications in peer reviewed journals by different authors have adopted the term and are now using it. I added one more in a further reading section to the article. Given that multiple writers in academia have embraced this neologism, I think it passes GNG and NEO.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of widespread use of this term in academic sources. Pretty much the only use of this term is in the articles published by the same team of researchers (who are WP:REFSPAMming this across Wikipedia). The article that you added to the 'further reading' section makes one off-hand mention to the concept and does so with the concept within quotation marks (which is not how a widely embraced term in the field is written up). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The use of the term in quotes is exactly how neologisms get written about. When people stop providing quotes then the terms are no longer neologisms as they have progressed to wide acceptance which is the antithesis of a neologism. The issue here isn't if a term has reached wide acceptance, but if the neologism has received significant coverage. One only has to look at the listed journal articles to see that there isn't consistent overlap like you are claiming. Only three journal articles have repeating authors. We have four more journal articles utilizing the term in one fashion or another in multiple journals with no identical authors between articles. It looks to me like this has gained enough traction to pass GNG and NEO.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comment is incorrect. Citations 2, 4, 5, 7 are authored by the same people. The other citations (1, 3, 6) do not even use the term "canvas ceiling". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Glass ceiling. Highly-obscure term doesn't need its own article. KidAd  •  SPEAK  02:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see significant, in-depth coverage. I assume the one journal cite may be able to be used as a reference in Refugee employment. I think the term is too obscure to be a redirect, but no objection to a redirect to refugee employment. Neutralitytalk 04:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  04:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Glass ceiling is fine as it's claimed as a kind of one. Could add some more lines about it there. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete per Snooganssnoogans (especially 3/4 October). WP:GNG requires multiple refs other than the primary origin. It's not really the same as glass ceiling and too WP:NEO to merit a redirect/mention there (a little too different a meaning, and WP's role isn't to promote adoption of new terms). Per Neutrality, it could be a ref in Refugee employment as long as it's written in a way that does not over-sell the adoption of this term/concept. DMacks (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2021 (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.