Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thousand words picture


 * 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. L Faraone  00:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thousand words picture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An endorsed PROD was removed. Article does not assert notability and is difficult to research. If the creator can come up with something more than a promotional blog entry then that might be ok but as things stand, this article subject seems not to meet WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that an article with the same titled was previously speedy deleted per criteria A10. I've no idea whether the recreation is similar, although the timing means that the two articles may possibly have been created by the same person. Might showing a lengthy list of words that appear in the picture, as the present version does, amount to some form of close paraphrasing? It is an odd situation! - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: the creator of the article now claims to be the creator of the artwork. I think that they are a bit confused about what is acceptable here but I am up to my eyeballs sorting out other issues elsewhere. It is unlikely to affect the outcome of this discussion but if someone has the time to explain to them then it would be A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Endorse deletion - adds no new useful content.-- Laun  chba  ller  09:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: no evidence of any notability. Pam  D  09:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not just lack of evidence of notability - I doubt if any such evidence exists. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This could probably be speedy deleted as a copyvio of this. In any case, this is clearly someone's attempt to use Wikipedia to promote their project. There's no evidence of notability, no evidence of third-party coverage. Easily fails WP:GNG.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you care to delve further into the website I linked above -- and why you would, I don't know; in any case I took that bullet for the team -- there's a link to someone's deviantart page. Clearly, someone decided to create a page on Wikipedia for his or her drawing, for shits-and-giggles or to become famous, who knows? Although this could probably be speedy deleted, I'm thinking we should let it run its course as speedy deleting a recreation of an AfD deletion is pretty simple. Not that I'm saying this will definitely be deleted or anything. But if it is, I'll bet good money it will be recreated.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - completely non-notable something someone drew one day. Canterbury Tail   talk  03:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - so I'm not tempted to click the link Sandover (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2013 (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.