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
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
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
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