Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MagicTouch (pencil sketch)


 * 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. North America1000 00:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

MagicTouch (pencil sketch)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is about a piece of art work (a pencil sketch) with no coverage in reliable sources. The article was newly created, and the sources provided are all dead links. I can find no coverage about the work, nor even any mention of the gallery in which is supposed to be held. Whpq (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: editor who created it has since been banned for their widespread vandalism (including this article, in my opinion) regarding some town in Southern India and its government. Clearly very misinformed/confused/incompetent/malicious/who knows. Anyway, this ought to go too as no sources cover it at all. R. A. S immons Talk 00:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. No citations to support that this is single art work merits its own article. If it's notable enough to be in an encyclopedia it should not take much effort for its creator to find critical, peer references that would support its significance.  Blue   Riband►   03:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  01:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  01:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The article about the artist who created this work is now up for deletion.  See Articles for deletion/Shivaraj kamble. -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete If notable, this work seems to suffer from lack of sources due to it being so recent. The actual text in the article is disorganized and further discredits it as a reliable article that can be expected to serve as an encyclopedic entry. The fact that the user who created this article was banned should not really play into consideration for this article if the ban was due to an unspecified act (or acts) of vandalism; however, it certainly does not help the case for this article.-- MarshalN20 T al k 23:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I haven't been able to verify that it exists. Fails WP:V Mduvekot (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best for now and restart when there's better context and sources for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister   talk  20:18, 22 March 2016 (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.