Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intimations of Immortality, Audiovisual Work

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.  Sandstein  19:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intimations of Immortality, Audiovisual Work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC (closest notability guideline I could find) The analysis of the sources are:

1. impossible to know what the source is
2. Self published work by the author
3. Web site of the compositor
4. page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
5. page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
6. page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
7. artist's page about his own work
8. page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
9. page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject
10. web site inaccessible impossible to verify the source but the description of the site by themselves is "La Posta Capital is a neighborhood newspaper in the western area of the city of Buenos Aires" so unlikely to be considered a reliable source to prove the notability of the subject.
11. artist's page about his own work
12. page about one of the inspirations for the work and and nothing about the subject

None of these sources are enough to prove notability for the work. I have carried out a search for sources and have found nothing that helps to prove notability. Domdeparis (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable, a largely unsourced speculative essay with a large amount of Art Gas, created by an SPA with likely COI. Or better yet speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Lockley (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2017 (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.