Deletion of Stuart Semple

Comment: Per  he has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are two specific events which gained national media coverage in the UK. The first was a project concerning the Momart fire.(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/nart18.xml Daily Telegraph) The other was an art intervention in the Saatchi Gallery.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4653189.stm BBC, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/06/nsaat06.xml Daily Telegraph, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sitesearch.do?query=Stuart+Semple&hitsperpage=10&nextOffset=0&offset=0&leftStartIndex=1&leftEndIndex=10&submitStatus=searchFormSubmitted&mode=simple&sectionId=675 The Times) He continues to receive media coverage in numerous outlets (go to http://www.stuartsemple.com stuartsemple.com and click "press"). The nom has rather misunderstood |sockpuppets, of which there is no evidence or relevance here. Even if Semple created it (and we have no evidence of that), it is not a reason for deletion. Nor do we penalise anon editors per se. It was created in December 2004 and has been edited by a number of different users since (including myself). This easily meets the criteria for inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:SOCK)

Comment: per Tyrenius. meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)