- 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 Speedy Keep – no policy or guideline is cited in the nomination. "Unimportant" is not an acceptable deletion rationale, and the article has 10+ independent reliable sources providing in depth coverage, clearly meeting WP:GNG and verifiability requirements. Steven Walling • talk 02:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Simpsonwave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unimportant/unverifiable topic. Hookorcrook (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I've screwed up the formatting. If someone would help fix it, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookorcrook (talk • contribs) 23:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and request close. The topic might be "unimportant" in some people's eyes, but that doesn't mean it's automatically not notable, and obviously the topic has been covered in reliable sources, including this pitchfork article that I have yet to read or cite. Definitly a disruptive nomination. editorEهեইдအ😎 01:09, 15 June 2016 (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.