Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DesignInquiry (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DesignInquiry

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

Promotional, non-notable, (and almost indecipherable), All references seem to be from inside the movement. AfD1 ended in delete, but with limitedparticipationand the closing admin chose to interpret it as a Prod. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT combined with WP:PROMO, due to ext links in body. There appears to be a conference associated with this group (Volume: Writings on Graphic Design, Music, Art, and Culture), but that's a passing mention, so I'd say delete without prejudice to recreation if reliable sources become available. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. 3 gnews hits including one blog and 2 non third party industry sources. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 20 September 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.