Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5Rhythms

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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5Rhythms[edit]

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

This has been speedied and prodded several times, and it would help to get a community decision. Myself, I have no opinion on whether the movement is notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is actually a rather large worldwide movement, a google search will bring up countless class listing from many different countries, and brief press listings (I got to page 30 and all the links were still on topic). There are some more extensive press sources NYT Aug 2010, Sommerset Life, The Independent 2005. There are a couple journal articles eg [1] and a PhD thesis[2]. Much positive but little critical has been written but thats not a reason to delete.--Salix (talk): 16:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one more press source Evening Standard April 2011.--Salix (talk): 08:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No case to answer. Warden (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - big worldwide, and also spreading beyond London in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parr Mike (talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag I speedied this and Gabrielle Roth mainly because neither article made it particularly clear that this was a notable subject. Both used mainly SPS and promotional sources. I see now that there is more interest in this than either article suggested, so I'd say tag the pages as needing improvements in the sourcing dept and keep. Famousdog (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2012 (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.