Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Mead

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Mead

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

Already reached successful Prod status after 7 days without response, tag was then removed by concerned editor, but notability has still not been established using WP:RS material, also appears to be a WP:COI concern Semitransgenic _talk. 16:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His article in French has some refs but I still doubt his notability. If he really were a notable artist in Berlin, would surely have an article at DE:WP. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Does seem to fail WP:BIO. I'm seeing his work on some well-known art sites, but nothing much on him outside of e.g. bios at galleries he's exhibited at. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article may well have had enough independent RS before the relisting, but this is no longer important, as there were more sources added on the 8th of July, and the article now meets RS. Anarchangel (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 15 July 2014 (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.