Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantine Finehouse

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Constantine Finehouse

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Constantine Finehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

BLP with no references Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Russia. Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient sourcing and promotional tone. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Very promotional and unsourced. I get many hits in something called The Strad, but nothing that can support GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral The 'article' as it now appears is non-encyclopedic and rather promotional. On the other hand, @Pasquale, who started the stub article and made some other contributions, seemed to find the subject worthy of note. Unhappily, the users @Kostyafinehouse and ConstFine (who have not shown any interest of other articles) essentially removed what little of encyclopedian interest there was, and replaced it with conventional promotion material.
  If Pasquale (or someone else) has the wish and finds the time for restoring a more encyclopedian article, and also could add some reliable (non-blog) sources for the interest the artist is said to have evoked, then I think the article could be kept. Otherwise, it should be deleted. (If it be kept, I think that the other two (or one) mentioned editors should be admonished that they are destroying the article by replacing biographical data with sales promotion.) JoergenB (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

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.