Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Noushin

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. sufficient consensus. not yet notable DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Noushin

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

WP:BLP of an artist, which makes no strong claim of notability per WP:CREATIVE and is based entirely on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage shown. Essentially, this is an advertisement for an artist rather than an encyclopedia article about an artist. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sad to see no articles or signs of notability (except for a few passing mentions in reviews of exhibitions and auctions) for this artist, despite his lovely art. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely it seems as simply none of this is solid for notability and searches found nothing convincing enough aside from expected coverage at News, browsers and Highbeam. Draft and Userfy if needed. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 14:53, 3 March 2016 (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.