Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jid'dat Bi Bi

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. Sandstein 06:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jid'dat Bi Bi

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

Previous Prod with rationale "Wikipedia is not a hosting service for non-notable images." Prod removed by article/image creator without edit comment, so bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author's own work, not mentioned in secondary reliable sources. Non-notable. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 09:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsensical article that is self promoting. Fails WP:N and WP:OR. - Pmedema (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, per nom...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete please. AsadUK200 (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable image. freshacconci talktalk 01:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Consensus is clear enough at this point. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2012 (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.