Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Veasey


 * 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. ✗ plicit  10:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Nick Veasey

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Indications of notability, but not enough evidence, in current article or from Google search. Article has been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Comment - This leads me to believe there is notability there....his work is in the permanent collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum.  Also this show at Mass MoCA . But what it a little odd is that of all the museum collections listed on his CV, the V&A is the only one that can be verified.  Netherzone (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC) UPDATE: I've changed my Comment to K**p, as it has been established that he meets WP:GNG per SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources over a period of time, and per several of his works in the collection of the Victoria & Albert Museum (as above and in the comment below). Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep There seems to be significant coverage, eg Time https://time.com/3797092/peeking-inside-health-care-nick-veaseys-medical-x-rays/, Boston Globe https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/10/12/how-you-ray-plane/kPyXW9AtDMQ2N4irqpHWSM/story.html, THe BMJ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26033233_The_man_with_x_ray_eyes, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/x-ray-book-reveals-an-inner-beauty-6hc7977czfq and plenty more found via Proquest https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/82/ Piecesofuk (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. the references above are sufficient for notability, and the item in the VA confirms   Tagging an article 12 years ago with NN is not a presupposition of non- notability.  The way to proceed is first to look at the state it was in 12 years ago--if additional sourced material has been added, the  tag should be removed. . Looking at that earlier state , itwas reasonable to asser that it wasn't necessarily notable, for it had only 1 ref. ) The tag should have been removed by whoever added the additional links and awards in 2010.  DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - this nomination was launched less than four minutes after an edit somewhere completely different. In the intervening 3 minutes the nominator made 3 minor edits to the article; one each minute. There's no way WP:BEFORE was even considered, and the ease with which sources were found above confirms this.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:CREATIVE per content found by Netherzone.4meter4 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.