Deletion of David Yeagley

Comment: the subject who went by "Bad Eagle", has received significant coverage in the ''Washington Times'', a reliable , all be it |biased, source. Furthermore, per  the subject's work has been cited in credible works, such as http://books.google.com/books?id=EQ2tAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT299&dq=%22David%20Yeagley%22&pg=PT299#v=onepage&q=%22David%20Yeagley%22&f=false here. Furthermore, as an artist the subject has received significant coverage in a non-primary source, such as http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-_wgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oHQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1323%2C1505134 this article. Moreover, the subject has received a notable number of passing mentions, such as http://books.google.com/books?id=0UNzFCOYTU4C&lpg=PA947&dq=%22David%20Yeagley%22&pg=PA947#v=onepage&q=%22David%20Yeagley%22&f=false this one, and opinions included in such non-right leaning media http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/08/02/columbus/index.html?iref=newssearch as ''CNN'', http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/senate/2012/09/15/elizabeth-warren-family-has-mixed-memories-about-heritage/cPMflfaOlndM1jFbimJ4tM/story.html and ''Boston Globe'', that the subject clearly passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:BIASED||WP:AUTHOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: Deleting this seems like .  redacted The Washington Times is not considered a "fringey" source, it is a mainstream one, but it is one a far left person might object because of their own personal bias.  Subject and sources are notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)