Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Freeze

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Freeze[edit]

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

Someone has coined a phrase in the press - sounds very much like an opinion piece. Even the article states not everyone agrees it exists. Non Notable Gbawden (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Existence ≠ Notability. Not everyone agrees Bigfoot exists. All that matters is that the "Seattle freeze" has been the main subject of multiple non-trivial articles in reliable sources, and that meets the WP:GNG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost speedy keep. Were sources added after the article was listed? Because with what's there now, it seems clearly to have been judged notable by several external sources. (Not that I would necessarily agree, but...) Abeg92contribs 21:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Concept is notable, well-cited, documented. Frankly, the suggestion that it should be deleted is spurious. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC
Keep, clearly. Plenty of sources, even some Gbooks hits, show the concept is well established and known. Meets GNG. BethNaught (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of course "someone" coined the phrase but it's being used by multiple reputable sources and is backed by real research, as discussed on article talk page. -- Brianhe (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2014 (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.