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 keep. Now the award has been shown,no point in prolonging this DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getik Baghdasarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTE. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Actually the editor has made substantial edits to a number of articles outside this topic (editor was formerly Psalm Tours (talk · contribs). -- Ty 18:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you use these external links as references, provided they meet WP:RS. See WP:REFB. Also, can you provide references for museum collections, as this would weigh heavily in the article's favour. Ty 18:16, 28 February 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.