Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Pearce (potter)

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. Though work was done on the article, the sources added were not sufficiently independent (e.g., a gallery that has displayed his work), and the copyright violation issue was never addressed, with a number of sentences remaining in the article still taken from Pearce's website. No prejudice against a brand new version, but it would have to be based on genuinely independent and reliable sources not to be considered a recreation. Chick Bowen 06:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Pearce (potter)[edit]

No assertion of notability per WP:N, no third-party references per WP:V, apparent WP:SPAM and WP:COI with no attempts made to correct problems. Mh29255 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like spam, someone should recreate this if the claims can be verified with external sources --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Vanispamcruftisement and only apparently 3rd party link is broken Thin boy 00 @166, i.e. 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: unfortunately even though I know who this guy is and he is a notable Irish potter, there are no substantive sources, so I have to agree with you if deletion is the decision. ww2censor (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with additional documentation. Ww2censor (see above) -- if you think/know he is "notable" in his region, most prominent clay artists have produced a gallery/artist show or two, with gallery listings, newspaper reviews, etc. Some are teachers, with info available about university settings, workshops and presentations. Do you have an Irish newspaper reference on this artist? Some museum or entity that has displayed his work? Awards or public recognition? Google comes up with many commercial hits -- many beyond self promotion. For example [1] Also found a March 2007 gallery show for paintings and sculpture at [2] which I quickly included in the article. With so few clay artists on Wikipedia, it would be a shame to delete this article if a little work could document the claims. WBardwin (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for references beyond his own website at the time it was first added but could find nothing. ww2censor (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Tyrenius (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now that WBardwin has done some work on it. ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real sources, no establishment of notability. If its improved significant before the close of the AfD, though, I could change my mind here. Avruchtalk 03:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, as passing WP:N and WP:RS, but still needs more work. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (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.