Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Piper's Gestures

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Piper's Gestures[edit]

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

Prod removed on the grounds that the creator took offense to a prod endorser calling it a borderline attack page. No indication that this "catalog" of a person's arm gestures meets notability criteria for inclusion. I'm guessing this is related to John Piper (theologian); assuming it is, since this is sourced to a blog I don't think this content even merits a mention in that article. Wikipedia is not a fansite. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting that someone thought this was worth making, nothing to support (and I'd still be good with deletion even if there was) so better to get rid of it. tutterMouse (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No matter what the article's creator says, I see it as borderline attack. (No-one will up and say 'Yes, I'm trying to have a go at so-and-so', will they?) If it isn't, then it's just irrelevant triviality and totally unencyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No attempt to explain who Piper is or why he might be notable. Probably should have been a speedy delete. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication or explanation of notability (see the notability guideline, or, more dramatically, WP:42) or even basic importance. Chris the Paleontologist (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete Completely unencyclopedic, nonnotable questionalble orignal research. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research and as a borderline attack. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's not an attack page, it's unreferenced trivia not even worth merging to John Piper (theologian). Instawisdom (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable trivia, and an unmaintainable list waiting to happen. Kill it quick. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 03:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete as per above. WP:SNOW ? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 15 January 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.