Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Pearson (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 merge to Wings of Love (painting). (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Pearson (artist)

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

I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate WP:NARTIST is met. The only claim to notability is that the artist created a widely recreated piece of art, but neither that nor the artist himself has attracted any in-depth commentary. In addition, the articles were created for pay. SmartSE (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is also nominated for deletion. The references cited contain only brief mentions. SmartSE (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Pearson's page to Wings of Love (painting). The painting has a decent amount of coverage, in Wayne Hemingway's book and lots of other works on 1970s popular culture, as well as references testifying to its bestselling status (which has less value for a poster than for a record, but still goes towards notability). I don't think we need separate pages on Pearson and the painting, bearing in mind that he's not done much other work of note. Plus while the page on the painting is oddly written, the page on the artist is nakedly promotional. (Note, there was a Californian artist called Stephen Pearson who seems to be unrelated[1].) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Colapeninsula. Merge to Wings of Love (painting).--Rpclod (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2017 (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.