Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Art of Eli Cohen

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 speedy deleted TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Eli Cohen

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

Unreferenced, non-notable artist per WP:CREATIVE, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. MuffledThud (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where to begin? This is completely unsourced--we only have his blogs and the word of the article author on the article talk page that this is "100% true". Obviously, this fails WP:V. If you were to remove all the WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL wording, you'd be left with "Eli Cohen was born in 1983 in Forest Hills, NY." Utterly fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. All ghits point to the spy Eli Cohen, a notable and fascinating man in his own right. This Eli Cohen, on the other hand, although we are assured he is a "Da Vinci of the 21st Century", is not notable. (Some free advice to the artist and/or article creator: "Da Vinci is not his last name, it's where he's from. You can call him Leonardo or Leonardo da Vinci. Da Vinci just means "of Vinci". Dan Brown is wrong on many, many points. The title is just the start). And what's with the article title? "The Art of Eli Cohen"? The strongest of possible deletes. freshacconci talktalk 13:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wait: can't we just speedy this thing as a copyvio of this? freshacconci talktalk 13:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. MuffledThud (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as such. andy (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2010 (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.