Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applause sign

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 merge to Studio audience. ✗plicit 13:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Applause sign[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lacks sufficient references. At best, redirect to Audience response or one of the other wikilinked articles mentioned. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/TNT - searching on Google Scholar, "Applause sign" does appear to be a notable topic, but the applause sign described in academic literature is totally unrelated to the current subject of this article, instead referring to a diagnostic test for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's diseases. [1] [2] So, there is a notable topic to be written at this title, but precisely none of the current content will be relevant to it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Studio audience. It is a thing that exists in a narrow context. If another sense is developed into an article later, the title or hatnote situation can be figured out at that time. BD2412 T 18:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think I'm up to the task of writing a stub about the medical topic and intend to do that once it's been decided what to do with the existing content. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested and is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2022 (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.