Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemo Gould (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo Gould

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another case of not only having a hardly-visited case in 2008, but having quite thin comments, which basically ended with no delete actions; examining this is not finding any actual museum collections or coverage at best; my own searches are noticeably simply finding listings, event listings and, all of them in fact, essentially simple mentions. There is nothing at all here to suggest it's notable, let alone hope-minded improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non=notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely pointless rationale. Non notable, per what?--BabbaQ (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG, this person has obviously done work that has recieved attention by reliable media/sources. also per NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY, simply because an article is in bad shape, or has had few edits since its creation does not mean its not notable. BabbaQ (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable modern artist who meets WP:GNG. See WP:SIGCOV in SF Gate and Wired. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simply listing 2 sources alone is not actually enough for convincing substance and independent notability, especially after I have not only noted my concerns above, but there's still nothing else actually better. The two sources are still thin with weight for substance; the SFGate is actually the consisting of interviews-parts, so the entire thing cannot be examined as being actually entirely acceptable. That's not even close to fully satisfying a better article, especially since I noted my concerns above including that there would still not be anything better than these few sources. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't really understand what you're trying to say because of your nonstandard use of English syntax. But you don't have to respond to every !vote I make at AFD. It comes across as WP:BLUDGEON. Please stop. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. The subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources: Wired, San Francisco Chronicle, wired (short article). There's also this extensive article from Make magazine, but it's mostly an interview. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I reviewed the previous AFD, reviewed the ref on current article, reviewed the refs mentioned above, and did my own search to confirm significant coverage exists. It does, passes WP:ARTIST. Also, Nominator's use of WP:BLUDGEON has become tiresome and disruptive. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Commenting about every single source and analyzing them is not bludgeoning them, because it shows the exact concerns here. Considering WP:CCC, simply noting that an article was kept over 7 years ago not relevant today if the notability and methods of it has substantially changed, that would essentially be saying "Why are looking at it again if they kept it 7 years ago. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A book called Device 2: Reconstructed is about 20 artists, including Gould, all described as "internationally renowned sculptors whose compulsive craftsmanship, distinct vision and mechanical fascination makes for an imaginative and arresting collection of work." He had a solo exhibition at the Oakland Museum of California, certainly a major museum. He was exhibited at the San Jose Museum of Art, another major museum. A book called Art of Northern California: Painting, Sculpture, Photography, Drawing, Printmaking, Mixed Media has a section devoted to Gould on page 90. @SwisterTwister: I find your prose style to be baffling, strange and often confusing to the point of being impossible to understand. I encourage you to adopt a straightforward, easily understood prose style, and abandon this bizarre stream-of-consciousness writing style that you seem so fond of. It is not helping your cause. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to start criticizing my analysis which was clear in stating the concerns, as "baffling", also, there has been explicit consensus here at AfD that simply exhibitions are not enough for notability, because 'any artist can have them, but only a select have actual collections. Once again, I noted my analysis above and still the article is substantial for notability. As for the "internationally renowned", any artist could be that, but not all of them are, granted, going to have an article, certainly not by that one claim alone. SwisterTwister talk 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NARTIST 4 (b) states: "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" which the Oakland solo exhibition (I believe) qualifies under. Other sources presented contributed to the assessment of notability in my mind. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per existence of multiple reliable sources independent of the subject discussing the subject in depth. Fieari (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.