Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal and infinite universe: artwork
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eternal and infinite universe: artwork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
About a painting. The artist, Mark Bridger, doesn't have a Wikipedia article on him and a brief perusal of search results indicates that he isn't notable. The price listed for the painting isn't relevant because no one paid that much. Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not look like an independently notable work of art, although its creator might actually be notable [1] (but that's an argument for a different day, I suppose. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per sbove, not notable and not encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Given that the article was written by Cosmospainter (talk · contribs), this smells like self-promotion to me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage about this piece of artwork in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2011 (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.