Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminal cycle


 * 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. WIll delete "erminal Cycle as well -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Terminal cycle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable artistic works. Article (and author's contribs) seem largely self-promotional. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   11:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page as it is an identical copy.

Shame on Jeppiz. It is not spam. Terminal series of the videos is a serious work of a reputable artist. It is strongly suggested for reviewers to get educated in contemporary arts before making any judgments or decisions in regards to contemporary art works. It is unconditionally accepted that one needs to know how to read prior to judging any literary work. Butterbeanne (talk)
 * Delete both As the nominator says, these duplicate articles fail WP:NOTABILITY and seem to be pure WP:SPAM. Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterbeanne (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not seeing any coverage of this "serious work of a reputable artist" in independent, in-depth, reliable sources. Coverage by galleries which usually are trying to sell the products doesn't really count as reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge / Redirect to Tim White-Sobieski if that gets kept at AfD (see Articles for deletion/Tim White-Sobieski). I don't see coverage enough for two articles at the moment. —Kusma (t·c) 11:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - zero coverage from reliable independent sources. Apologies to the editor above, but artist's bios on commercial sites, promo articles, and links to other wikis aren't considered reliable independent sources.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:25, 29 October 2015 (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.