Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Sing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Issues of cleanup, sourcing and merging are better suited to talkpage discussion. Skomorokh 01:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Sing

Magic Sing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Seems non-notable and borderline spam. I have removed some spam links to this company added by the user. BananaFiend (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment It is a very popular brand in the Philippines and the term "Magic Sing" has entered the colloquial parlance as shorthand for "karaoke". Have no opinion whether those facts in themselves merit the article. The entry as written is worth deleting, but if written properly, it might have a case for retention.--Anyo Niminus (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, then edit. Written as spam, but the subject is notable in the Philippines (very popular actually). Starczamora (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Who will edit it? Punkmorten (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment — that should not be the concern of the AfD discussion. After closure, if the decision is keep-with-cleanup, Template:Cleanup-afd should be affixed; if clean-up/expansion/revision has not taken place in a "reasonable time", the article can be brought back to AfD, where the outcome should not again be keep-with-cleanup (though in principle it could be). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge → Karaoke#Technology. If the popularity of the brand in the Philippines can be established via reliable sources, then the article could be kept-with-cleanup. However, I am not confident that such sources can be found easily or in a timely manner, which is why I suggest merger to the broader-topic article, where it is at present not mentioned at all - which seems unusual for purportedly prominent brand. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per this minimal news coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Starczamora and Martijn Hoekstra, definately needs work though. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup per Starczamora and Martijn Hoekstra's statements and articles presentation and content.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
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.