Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Neville

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. Cerebellum (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Neville

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

A Pulitzer nomination is not an award, or even status as a finalist--it just takes a $50 submission fee. Nothing else here shows sufficient notability; most of the material is press releases DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And the article was made by an SPA. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a decent number of sources if you look, and his projects have had some prominence. It's not obvious whether he's notable to me. —innotata 21:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added 9 sources I believe. He is an internationally known artist. The Pulitzer nomination is odd because I can't find anything to back that up, but why make that claim when he is internationally recognized? Anyway the sources satisfy WP:GNG and there is plenty of depth available for a nice article. I am One of Many (talk) 05:57, 12 October 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 00:34, 13 October 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 23:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the general notability guideline appears to be met. The claim regarding the Pulitzer nomination feels awkward in the lede sentence, but that can always be changed. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:40, 21 October 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.