Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Egyptian man

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 Merge into Kamal-ol-molk -- RoySmith (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Egyptian man

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

The subject of this article lacks notability. The sources cited do not discuss the subject just mention it. Google search returns no hits connected to this subject [1]. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated, not even enough here to merit a merge to the artist.TheLongTone (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Article probably qualifies for speedy deletion (A7). -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not qualify for WP:A7 as it is not about real person, nor about individual animal(s), nor about organization, nor about web content, nor organized event. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it is likely notable, but it might be difficult to find sources, since they are likely to be in Persian and off-line. Dedicated art books on the artist would be my guess. If the sources have not been found during the nomination, the article should be redirected rather than deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious merge to artist, Kamal-ol-molk (as should be done for the rest of the paintings in the artist's gallery. If the names redirecting are problematic no redirects should be left, I haven't looked into that issue in depth. But these paintings don'tneed their own articles as no sources covering them individually in depth have been presented. They are covered as part of the artist's career and should be covered so here as well. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kamal-ol-molk (WP:PRESERVE). Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kamal-ol-molk - the title of a picture is a likely search term. Diego (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kamal-ol-molk seems to be the best solution. --Artene50 (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above - seems worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2014 (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.