Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Despair
Source: 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 delete. DS 21:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Despair
Alleged cult Indian painting. Created by a single-purpose account; image is tagged {{GFDL-self}}; etc. Is this an advert or just a few newbie errors in creating an OK article? -- RHaworth 10:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – only one piece of verifiable evidence, not even cited on the article. Also created the ]
- Speedy delete as hopeless blatant spam (criterion G11). It's bad enough creating an article about yourslef, but individual paintings? No way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete are we really debating this? ad for his art! 4.18GB 13:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete — obvious spam -- lucasbfr talk 16:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - That was art? I have seen better paintings by Fluffy the Office Max copy cat. Still one mans trash is... nevermind. Obvious self-promotion. Both thumbs down. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 17:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- btw, on further browsing I noticed the pseudorealism article says something to the effect that this new age in art started in 1974. Coincidence it is the year of this artists birth? I think not... --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Pseudorealism and Pseudorealism in Indian Art. Managed to get top ranks by his campaign here. Pavel Vozenilek 20:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reference to where this painting can be seen, whether it has won any awards, etc. NawlinWiki 21:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- D-l33t Not a bad painting, but no earthly reason for an article.
- Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 02:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable enough. utcursch | talk 08:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. utcursch | talk 08:38, 29 October 2006 (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.