Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mensura Jahić

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. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mensura Jahić

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

Typical promotional spam.Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades^Godric 11:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I agree it is over promotional it does not seem bad enough for TNT and can be fixed. The google news search above shows five quite decent references so WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An analysis of sources presented by the aforesaid !voter Winged Blades^Godric 15:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref-1--Discusses an exhibition in remembr5ance of a Sufi poet.Her name is mentioned trivially just once--in the list of the people whose works are exhibited.
Ref 2-- This covers Adis Lukac; not our subject!She just finds a lone mention as a participant.
Ref 3--Discusses the subject in a short article.May be paid promotion.
ref 4--Something of the type of a mini-interview discusing her work featured in a magzine.

Ref 5--That's good.

Sorry, but these does not help her pass WP:GNG.Winged Blades^Godric 15:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT - This article is as blatantly promotional as they come. There's no hope of salvaging this article so starting again from scratch is all that can be done. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If I understand this right, what notability she has seems to be primarily as a photographer, and primarily attested via the European Union Migrant Artists Network (EU-MAN) and its magazine Universal Colours. Each is currently redlinked -- in itself, this isn't damning, but they're so obscure that Google doesn't even find them mentioned in en.wikipedia.org (aside from this one article). Let's take a look at the issue of Universal Colours whose PDF is linked in a reference. Near the front of this, there's something oddly titled "The obligation", which seems to be some sort of statement of intent. Here's how it starts: "This is our 18th years of work; meaning we are adults now, meaning we can decide by ourselves, meaning we can be independent and can move from our father and mother dominance. It means and means and means and so on." This doesn't look at all promising. So I disagree with Exemplo347 (above): don't start again from scratch; instead, just remove. -- Hoary (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article claims exhibitions in museums and public galleries around the world, for which I didn't find any references. The Universal Colours I found with article about her is a promotional publication, which prints articles about artists who pay them to be printed, which excludes it from the list of independent sources. So, unless someone provides verifiable links to here exhibitions, the article clearly can't stay and it's not salvageable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2017 (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.