Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wajid Khan (artist)

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. Missvain (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wajid Khan (artist)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

absurdly promotional article with a great many PR references, about half of them to name-dropping. The contributor's only other contribution was a declined draft which is now been continued by another paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Fails WP:NARTIST, but artists have high notability. ~Cupper (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absurdly promotional indeed, sourcing is ripe with SEO spam. Even if he were to pass NARTIST, this article is beyond repair. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced. Have done some editing of the page for Wikipedia style and to tone down the excess promotion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I have an issue with phrases like "at the age of 14 he invented the world's smallest electric iron" and "he went on to invent a water theft device." Poorly written article that seems more as promotional. Kolma8 (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a borderline work of madness. Sourcing is suspect, marginal, PR-led. 'Most nails used for a portrait'? Oh, my... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is astonishing what the Times of India and The Hindu will publish. They'll really print anything. There is, of course, an artist who really IS known for his nail art, Günther Uecker. Vexations (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly written article that is blatantly promotional. It has so much unnecessary information that if all that information was removed, it would be much too short to merit its own article. Coreykai (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2020 (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.