Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slow living


 * 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) sst✈  00:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Slow living

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Puff piece based on differently-reliable sources, mainly comprised of quotes from proponents. No actual evidence of encyclopaedic importance. Precious little evidence it's even a thing, to be honest. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep It's clearly a thing as there are multiple books written about it. The worst case would be a merger with some similar concept such as simple living. Andrew D. (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. This seems rather redundant to Slow movement (culture).  I don't understand why there are so many breakout articles on this culture. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A redirect tot hat article would be fine. The issue seems to be exactly as you describe: loads of tiny articles based on crap sources describing fractional nuances of something.Guy (Help!) 09:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Clear Keep it is a very well documented concept, that ought to be teased out, as a distinct school of thought. The movement article is a bit too ambitious, and really needs work, but is certainly notable. Sadads (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete until it can pass basic draft standards. Keep Sorry, but the article looks like only a sandbox very first scratching.  If it is notable and 'has multiple books written about it' as per Davidson and 'is is very well documented' as per Sadads, the it should be easy to fix up.  Can either  or  fix it? Aoziwe (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could easily improve this article but it's not a priority as it already has plenty of content. Our editing policy is to retain such articles rather than deleting them:"Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing."


 * Andrew D. (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep you are right.  But the article comes across as so un encyclopedic in style.  It really does need a style fix urgently.  I might give it a go if I get the time in the next week or so.  Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete — what a dreadful, dreadful article. Yes, the subject is a thing, but best blow it up and start over per WP:TNT: "if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. If you keep the article, then you're keeping something of no value until someone replaces it with something of value, [and] people tend to be more inclined to fill red links." Bishonen &#124; talk 12:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC).


 * Keep – The topic comfortably passes WP:GNG per a review of available online sources. Entire books are devoted to the topic. North America1000 00:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It seems appropriate to take it slow with this topic...  Sandstein  20:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Moderate Delete - I think nobody is arguing against notability here, it is rather the form and content that is... questionable and I find myself agreeing with the WP:TNT approach. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is a very legitimate subject matter and while may need some editing, shouldn't be thrown out.--CaligirlTay89 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * keep I think form can be fixed. Edit but don't delete. --Jimhorts (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * CaligirlTay89 and Jimhorts are ✅ sock puppets.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck content from confirmed socks above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America1000 00:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep it's a well known topic, we might even probably already have an article for it under a different name, I don't know if Simple living is it. Just because we personally dislike some topics doesn't mean they haven't been written about countless times, ad nauseam some would say, but that makes them noteworthy.SatansFeminist (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article looks like some kind of advertisement, but it is notable, per the book sources. Esquivalience  t 01:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Craig, G. & Parkins, W. (2006). Slow living. Manhattan, NY: Berg Publishers.
 * Honore, C. (2004). In praise of slow: how a worldwide movement is challenging the cult of speed. Toronto, ON, Canada: Random House.
 * Possibly related: Nathan, W. (2015). The Kinfolk home: interiors for slow living. Manhattan, NY: Ouur.


 * Comment: I have stubified the article. Esquivalience  t 01:45, 27 February 2016 (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.