Deletion of Nick Meers

Comment: At present I am dubious over the sources being used here. A search of amazon or barnes & noble does not show that someone is notable, particularly when you look at the sales ranks of the books. It may be an indication of notability, but it doesn't meet any of the recommendations of . Likewise, having taken some pictures for the National Trust website may be an indication of notability but does not prove it. The basic problem at that moment is that there is no reliable independent source for biographical information about the person. If there are more reviews of his work, or if it can be shown that he is widely referenced in photography circles then we might get close to shpowing . I'm willing to be convinced, but at the moment I'm not seeing it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE||WP:N)

Comment: I believe  #3 applies. There is a body of work with multiple reviews
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: I believe that  was not followed correctly in this case. In particular, under section 3, it would have been appropriate to add a {{notability}} tag before proposing deletion for this article. I would request that the original proposer follows  before nominating any further AfDs in future
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: He has an established reputation in his field as evidenced by the number of books where he is the co/author and cumulative other mentions/reviews. Those working in the visual arts seem to have a higher bar applied to them than that in e.g.  or . This should not be the case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BAND||WP:ATHLETE)