Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrainCraft

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 keep. (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrainCraft[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, I am not sure why page patroller has not marked for deletion and tagged for uncategorized, stub and others. Ireneshih (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the references do seem like reliable sources. Good, reasonably substantial coverage, by a variety of independent news sites. It seems notable, by our standards. Being a stub or uncategorized is not a reason for deletion. Not really sure what the problem is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with @Shawn in Montreal: - One of numerous articles recommended for deletion by nominator that have me scratching my head. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (maybe Speedy Keep?) Deep coverage from good sources. Not sure why this was nominated.--Sbwoodside (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate coverage by reliable and reputable sources. Looie496 (talk) 12:14, 19 November 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.