Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqeel Solangi

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aqeel Solangi

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Dubious sources,in conflict with WP:BLP The Banner talk 20:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything dubious or in conflict with WP:BLP about the sources linked in the "external links" section. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a massive vanity page. Sources given are for exhibition catalog essays, which are, but nature, essentially self-published. No reliable sources fond in a web search. suggest delete and salt since this has been deleted befroe and appears to be a vanity project.104.163.153.162 (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are this and this, to select just two of the external links from the article, "exhibition catalog essays, which are, but nature, essentially self-published"? They are independent reviews of this artist's work. Of course the article is currently written in a very promotional way, but the subject is clearly notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page written seems like promotional prose and it needs to be rewritten, however it meets WP:GNG as search found here [1], [2] and [3]. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you are right, but seeing this sockpuppet investigation is not adding to its reliability. Three of the four main editors were sockpuppets (the other is the file_delinkerbot). The Banner talk 15:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^Talk 03:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it per WP:TNT and failure of WP:NARTIST. Not enough coverage and clear COI. Störm (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional BLP containing OR created by a blocked sock puppet. --Saqib (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2018 (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.