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. MBisanz ^talk 07:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Sedano[edit]

A graphic designed with some on-line presence. But this is basically promotional with too little evidence of anything exceptional or encyclopedic Scott Mac (Doc) 12:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gnews only gets hits for a different Alex Sedano; gsearch comes up with lots of self promotion, but nothing in the way of independent, reliable sources.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references given are not clear and I also cannot see independent, reliable sources. Self promotion? --Artypants, ^Babble 16:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2009 (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.