Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lia Lapithi Shukuroglou

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. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Lapithi Shukuroglou

The very impressive-looking resume of an artist.

The article was created by the SPA "Ishukuro" on 1 January. I noticed it and flagged it with LIKERESUME and UNREFERENCED the next day. User:KRBN prodded it on 23 April, with the somewhat ambiguous comment "Very bad style and not notable person without reference". Five days later User:Terriersfan removed the prod with the comment "Badly needs cleanup but enough here to assert notability". Not having noticed this earlier prod (Sorry!), I reprodded it on 15 May with the comment "three months have gone by, and there are still no references". Later that same day, User:DGG removed the prod with the comment "I see refs at the bottom".

So let's examine the refs. They are:

"For books [sic] reviews, visit MIT Leonardo Journal http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/reviews/feb2005/operate_mosher.htm"
The subject's own website

And that's all.

The first of these is presumably a list of the artist's book reviews for the Leonardo journal. It's likely to say little or nothing beyond this. (I don't know, because it has timed out every time I've tried it.)

The other isn't an independent source.

The artist has two books listed, complete with ISBNs. I'm willing to believe that these exist. I could cut the article down to to "Lia Lapithi Shukuroglou is an artist who has had two books published", and then list the books, but that would be an odd article indeed. Or I could spend hours googling around for disinterested info on this artist. But if Ishukuro can't be bothered, neither can I.

So I recommend deleting the article, without in any way prejudicing the fate of a later, entirely different article about the same person. -- Hoary 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is probably irredeemable. Oh, and not notable enough or sufficiently verifiable. Adrian M. H. 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment created by single-use account. --Infrangible 17:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That person is not giving any notability information. Also it is the worst styled article I have ever seen in wikipedia. --User:KRBN 20:56, 5 June 2007 (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.