Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talantbek Chekirov


 * 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 speedy delete. copyright violation Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Talantbek Chekirov

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is sourced to non-RS. A BEFORE fails to find any references in Google News, JSTOR, or newspapers.com. There are two highly incidental references in Google Books, but not enough to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OH COME ON! It seems like anything I create, Wikipedia automatically destroys! You may not perceive him as notable, but earlier today, I saw his name in a paintings shop, and immediately looked him up on Wikipedia, and was unable to find any mention of his name. Therefore, I created the article. Leave it be.--Macaroniking (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "It seems like anything I create, Wikipedia automatically destroys!" Just to clarify, destroying articles is a manual process. It is also time consuming and can take days to accomplish, which is why reading the WP:BLP before creating an article is appreciated! Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Look, you may not think he is notable. I, on the other hand, after seeing his paintings in various places for a while, wondered who he was and decided to look his name up. I am sure there are other people who would like to read about him. In a sense, you are denying people the right to read about something. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to be a place of knowledge. There are some very obscure things on Wikipedia, but I still believe they should be there, because someone may want to look them up. Talantbek is something which some people may probably want to look up, and is not necessarily un-notable.--Macaroniking (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete A7. I don't even see an assertion of notability never mind any proof of it. The above discussion shows a complete misunderstanding of what notability means here, hence the inability to comprehend why this is up for deletion and that this is in no way a disparagement of the artist. Hint: When used on Wikipedia, the words "notable" and "notability" mean something more specific than they do colloquially. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2018 (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.