Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People watching


 * 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. Consensus is to keep on the basis that the sources now in the article show the concept to be notable enough for retention. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 19:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

People watching

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While the expression "people watching" is certainly very common, there does not seem to be a definition beyond the meaning of the two words. The sources provided here are more like examples and do not define the concept well enough for an encyclopedia article. Besides the sources have little to do with what is claimed in the article. Skylark777 (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, the article can be better with an expansion, Google Books reveals books from where information might be incorporated. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail  16:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We can also merge this to Body language. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail  05:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But that is not what people usually mean when they talk about people watching, including the sources provided in the article. It's usually about going someplace and watching people walk around and interact in public.Borock (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There's stack of books with this title including Peoplewatching: The Desmond Morris Guide to Body Language; People Watching: Social, Perceptual, and Neurophysiological Studies of Body Perception; People Watching; Everybody's Guide to People Watching, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete Keep Most of the books mentioned are about Body language, certainly a notable topic. However the article seems to be talking about a recreational activity, and this is the way I've heard the expression used.  I'm not sure it goes beyond: "People watching is watching people." Borock (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Sources do not discuss topic in depth, or even define it. They are just examples.  People watching is not body language so don't merge or redirect there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep- a notable topic Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 19:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. As other editors have noted, this is a well-documented phenomenon with plenty of coverage in reliable sources (see, e.g., this Huffington Post article and this article from National Geographic; I added these sources to the article). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources. I have changed my vote to keep.Borock (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Numerous books written on the subject, often discussed in reliable sources, well-known, this should be a simple keep. Jacona (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - the phenomenon exists, maybe under other names. Zezen (talk) 01:02, 19 December 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.