Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark art

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. No prejudice to re-creation if sufficient in-depth sources can be found. Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark art (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)

Cannot find WP:RS discussing this subject significantly. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete find a source for this , put it into the article Art and then when you have a lot of sources spin it out. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a vague description masquerading as an art movement. There is nothing here and this does not remotely satisfy WP:GNG. freshacconci talk to me 20:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if this is deleted, the title should redirect to dark arts, since a single dark art (black magic) comprises the dark arts -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree, DABs don't need redirects people will get there just fine without a redirect. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABs have not-infrequently had redirects, there are categories for such redirects such as {{R to disambiguation}} and {{R from partial disambiguation}} ; it's not uncommon for variant spellings singular and plural forms to redirect to the dab -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a great article but there are several sources out there, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. --Michig (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided What the article describes is certainly real and notable. It's not clear if sources use that name for it to the degree that would justify an article, or if maybe there is already a better article under another name. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move If this page is not just a hoax I would favour moving the content to the page Goth subculture. Failing support for this motion my vote is a weak keep. I am not sure if this topic is worthy of its own page in terms of notability but it is certainly worth a mention on Wikipedia. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; vague description, used in a unrelated ways. Neutrality^talk 04:02, 28 April 2015 (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.