- 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. Tone 09:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Karan Acharya
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Karan Acharya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP1E applies here, the subject is notable only for one event. Not meeting WP:NARTIST. Large part of the content is unsourced and appear to be original research. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The nom grounds are badly wrong. This is an artist mainly known for one work - that is not at all what
WP:BLP1E covers. There seems a good case for him meeting
WP:GNG and
WP:NARTIST, though this is not a conventional fine art career. Irf he is not notable, his best-known graphic probably is.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- You are right, BLP1E does not accord with artists and their single or multiple works. You have misunderstood the rationale here. The subject's demand for copyright of his work made headlines in the newspaper during mid 2018. That event made him popular,and nomination is referring to that event. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, BLP1E may be applicable. Apart from that, notability can not be inherited, even if his best-known graphic is notable. Hitro talk 06:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Article was speedy deleted at last AFD two months ago, by author request, then recreated Sept 14th 2019. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 15:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Subject is notable. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST but present tone is too promotional. Article must be written from scratch and I will do once this is deleted. This is garbage for Wikipedia now. — Harshil want to talk? 15:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's not how we do it - this is not a ground for deletion. It actually doesn't seem all that promotional to me; sourcing issues are more evident.
Johnbod (
talk)
18:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
-
Johnbod, I disagree that we can't delete an article because of its promotional tone. Sometimes TNT is needed. But I don't see this as such an article. I also agree with you that BLP1E does not apply to this artist. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
01:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- We don't delete articles to rewrite them was my point (see below). Johnbod ( talk) 01:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
-
Johnbod, I disagree that we can't delete an article because of its promotional tone. Sometimes TNT is needed. But I don't see this as such an article. I also agree with you that BLP1E does not apply to this artist. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
01:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's not how we do it - this is not a ground for deletion. It actually doesn't seem all that promotional to me; sourcing issues are more evident.
Johnbod (
talk)
18:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Harshil169 why would you want to delete it and then rewrite? Rather let's enhance the article, I am working on collating a list of independent references that help us do that Amitized ( talk) 10:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Amitized
- Keep passes WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. It does need weeding of promotion, but that isn't of concern to this AFD. Harshil169 can always improve the article from its current condition. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 07:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 07:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Subject is notable. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST relevant policy WP:NOTCLEANUP an editor can remove the promotional feel, but that is not a good deletion rationale. Wm335td ( talk) 20:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Subject is notable, and passes the encyclopedia criteria WP:ARTIST. The article needs clean up to remove any promotional language, which is an easy task, and not a reason for deletion. Netherzone ( talk) 13:33, 25 October 2019 (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.
- 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. Tone 09:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Karan Acharya
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Karan Acharya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP1E applies here, the subject is notable only for one event. Not meeting WP:NARTIST. Large part of the content is unsourced and appear to be original research. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 05:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The nom grounds are badly wrong. This is an artist mainly known for one work - that is not at all what
WP:BLP1E covers. There seems a good case for him meeting
WP:GNG and
WP:NARTIST, though this is not a conventional fine art career. Irf he is not notable, his best-known graphic probably is.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- You are right, BLP1E does not accord with artists and their single or multiple works. You have misunderstood the rationale here. The subject's demand for copyright of his work made headlines in the newspaper during mid 2018. That event made him popular,and nomination is referring to that event. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, BLP1E may be applicable. Apart from that, notability can not be inherited, even if his best-known graphic is notable. Hitro talk 06:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Article was speedy deleted at last AFD two months ago, by author request, then recreated Sept 14th 2019. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 15:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Subject is notable. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST but present tone is too promotional. Article must be written from scratch and I will do once this is deleted. This is garbage for Wikipedia now. — Harshil want to talk? 15:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's not how we do it - this is not a ground for deletion. It actually doesn't seem all that promotional to me; sourcing issues are more evident.
Johnbod (
talk)
18:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
-
Johnbod, I disagree that we can't delete an article because of its promotional tone. Sometimes TNT is needed. But I don't see this as such an article. I also agree with you that BLP1E does not apply to this artist. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
01:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- We don't delete articles to rewrite them was my point (see below). Johnbod ( talk) 01:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
-
Johnbod, I disagree that we can't delete an article because of its promotional tone. Sometimes TNT is needed. But I don't see this as such an article. I also agree with you that BLP1E does not apply to this artist. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
01:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's not how we do it - this is not a ground for deletion. It actually doesn't seem all that promotional to me; sourcing issues are more evident.
Johnbod (
talk)
18:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Harshil169 why would you want to delete it and then rewrite? Rather let's enhance the article, I am working on collating a list of independent references that help us do that Amitized ( talk) 10:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Amitized
- Keep passes WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. It does need weeding of promotion, but that isn't of concern to this AFD. Harshil169 can always improve the article from its current condition. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 07:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 07:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Subject is notable. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST relevant policy WP:NOTCLEANUP an editor can remove the promotional feel, but that is not a good deletion rationale. Wm335td ( talk) 20:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Subject is notable, and passes the encyclopedia criteria WP:ARTIST. The article needs clean up to remove any promotional language, which is an easy task, and not a reason for deletion. Netherzone ( talk) 13:33, 25 October 2019 (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.