Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Neate

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 Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure), with special thanks to Cunard for reconfirming notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Neate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Having looked at historic news articles I can't see much evidence that Adam Neate is know for anything but giving away some pictures which may or may not be worth something. His only notability appears to be as a self-publicist. Speedy delete failed, and I now realise that request was not appropriate as the article did attempt to assert some notability. Therefore I've proposed a normal deletion. Pontificake (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable artist. There are plenty of sources on Google News and Google News Archive. He's been called "one of the world's best-known street artists" by Telegraph.co.uk and has received a lot of coverage about him giving away many of his works of art in London. The Google News Archive search on this artist shows that he has received a fair amount of coverage before he started giving free paintings, negating the nom's assertion of WP:BLP1E. The numerous reliable sources that can be found about him show that this individual passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Cunard's evidence, I believe that Neate is notable enough according to WP:BIO to allow this article to remain. Terrakyte (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not even a remote chance of deletion. Even the nom admits notability. It doesn't matter what notability is for, only that it exists. I suggest withdrawal of nom, so this can be a speedy keep. Ty 03:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree there are plenty of reputable sources to establish notability.  LinguistAtLarge 
• Keep. There are plenty of reputable sources about his work (he was also featured in a 5-10 minute segment on SMart which only shows notable artists) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 18 November 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.