Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qi peng Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qi_peng

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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

qi peng

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

I am admittedly not an art expert, but I fail to see how this man passes WP:ARTIST. The article, which is without references and the external links provide little in the way of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. The article was started by a now blocked account that spammed several other articles with links from a blacklisted site and those links were written by, yes, qi peng. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Smacks of being promotional. No opinion as to notability. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN and non-encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2011 (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.