Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil Shit (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Shit

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

This might be a little soon, but I'm renominating this for deletion after the previous AfD was closed as "no consensus". The problem here is that there are zero sources for this genre to show that it ultimately merits an entry. I did an overall cleaning of the article to remove the sources, none of which were usable to show notability as they were either primary (social media, websites), merchant links, or forum/blog posts. The genre exists, but existing is not notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS references, no relevant news archive results, and nothing on the Billboard site ("Devil shit" site:www.billboard.com). The term is not even in "Urban Dictionary." The Viking at Stamford Bridge (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't found anything either. If this were a recognised genre it would be written about somewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant original research, can't find any hits either in the first few pages of news and book searches). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wish someone else would have commented on the first one so we did not have to do this song and dance again. But, obvious delete a not notable subgenre of a subgenre and the article is riddled with WP:NOR. STATic message me! 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not worthy of inclusion as it is not Notable and fails WP:V and [[WP:RS]. The entries are completely relient on original research - Pmedema (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR - no reliable sources provided and Google News & Highbeam yield nothing further. Nik thestunned 09:23, 14 October 2013 (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.