Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edie Parker (Canadian artist)

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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edie Parker (Canadian artist)[edit]

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

Delete. This artist produced a sculpture of some note (but without a WP article) but that does not confer notability on the artist himself. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given [1], abd other references for the work, there should be an article on either the sculpture or the artist. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Our game (sculpture), as it seems the sculpture is of more note than the article. Edgepedia (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say the sculpture is of minor notability and as a stand-alone article I can't see how it could expand beyond what is written on the artist's page. The artist, likewise, is notable if at all, for this one piece. I'd suggest moving the whole thing to the Hockey Hall of Fame with the applicable redirects. freshacconci talktalk 17:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep either under the artist or the name of the sculpture. Stuff like [2] and [3] indicate that there is coverage about it. It is all related to the Hockey Hall of Fame so I as a secondary opinion, I have no objections to Freshacconci's suggestion of merging to the Hall of Fame article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A great piece of Canadiana whose creator deserves to be acknowledged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyjack1 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:00, 1 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.