Deletion of Tim Cotterill

Comment: Despite my earlier involvement in formatting and cleaning up this article, notability is not established by the references and no other significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: no |reliable |independent sources cited - all his own, or galleries selling his stuff. Also, Wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:IS)

Comment: I wish to voice my own growing concern over my perception of  on the part of the nom.  It would seem a discussion best kept on this page was taken to the talk page of an editor who opined a keep... questioning their integrity and belief in the notability of this artist. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIkip&diff=274686798&oldid=274630561 diff 1. Bad form. And then to visit the page of an non-biased admin and question their interpretation of the ongoing discussion? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=prev&oldid=274681570 diff 2. Bad form. That he chooses to ignore some arguments in favor, or dismisses other's interpretations of guideline is fine... but perhaps he might wait until the AfD is closed to make arguments best seen at a DRV
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per .  Any article that starts right out by claiming "world reknown" had better produce something really strong to back that up.  This isn't even close
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: as the person who seconded the prod. The problem remains: it's still a vanity page with nothing from |independent reliable sources to demonstrate . Listing his publications doesn't help the cause: third person reviews of his work (not on a blog or anything that is self published like a fansite) would
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BIO)

Comment: per .  Searches by disinterested editors appear to have found plenty of |good newpaper articles that show this is a notable artist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:RS)

Comment: not notable per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: per meeting the requirements of  in that the article's sources (added since nomination) now show "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries."  His strange little frogs have been a significant part or the entire focus of dozens of exhibitions across the US. Its wild. Its bronze. And it croaks. Sad that the article has sat unattended since May, but it will greatly benefit form copyedit and expansion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)