Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art and mind control

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art and mind control

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

Since there is no CSD for blatant essays, here we are. This is a blatant essay from an editor with no other edits. Non encyclopedic, reads like WP:OR, and has no inline citations and few if any reliable sources. Possible case for WP:USERFY. — Timneu22 · talk 19:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't be encyclopedic. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like an essay in progress, but I had a hard time following this one. Somewhere in there is something to the effect that people who bid for art at auction houses are under some type of mind control, or something like that. I can't prove it, but this looks a lot like something that has been translated into English by Google translate. The lack of "a", "an" and "the" suggests Russian, but who knows... Mandsford 21:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable essay, creator keeps removing AfD tags and has been warned for making a legal threat. GregJackP (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this, and WP:SNOW, should we just delete this now and WP:SALT it, too? (Maybe even block user?) — Timneu22 · talk 14:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have reported user and IP to AIV, requested temp semi-page protection for the duration of the AfD. Hopefully that will take care of it. GregJackP (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore above writers don't have expertise to make judjement either were unable to write better article on this important global issue years before —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postmodern z (talk • contribs) 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preceding editor has no other edits, and is almost certainly a WP:SOCK of user:postmodern-art. I opened a sock puppetry case. — Timneu22 · talk 15:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently [1] copy-vios this article. Not sure what to do.Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it could also be speedily deleted (G12), should be salted based on actions of creator, socks, and IPs. GregJackP (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think qwertyus is saying that the blog article is a copy of this, not the other way around. That's weird, huh? At any rate, this article will soon be gone and likely salted! — Timneu22 · talk 15:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and there is no amount of rewriting that could turn this into an encyclopedia article. It is also, I sadly mention, not a very good essay. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer above this is a non encyclopedic essay. Also agree that it should be salted if possible. MarnetteD | Talk 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per all above (except the smelly socks). WuhWuzDat 14:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a salt is unnecessary as it seems from emails I have received from the creator that she does not intend to recreate the article. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:37, 19 June 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.