Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Troemel (4th 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. Before this comes back for for a 5th try, please try and come up with something more original than, "It's still not notable" -- RoySmith (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Troemel

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

still reads like a resume Ella787 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced of Brad Troemel's notability. The clarifications and insertions provided by user OR drohowa in late November 2013 help tremendously, but saying that his writing has been "featured on" The New Inquiry, for instance, feels disingenuous. If we had Wikipedia entries on every writer who regularly published in such literary magazines, or who had tumblrs with a lot of followers and which generated critical discussion, we would ahve many, many more entries. There remain discrepancies between the entry itself and the talk page. The talk page seems to suggest that this entry should be kept because he has shown at PS1; however, the entry itself says that he has lectured at places like PS1-- a much, much lower threshhold of notability. This page still reads like a résumé with insufficient external links that don't read like listings on a CV.

Delete - Not notable yet ...though I question why an editor/editors are registering new accounts to repeatedly nominate this article. But the article still doesn't stand up to scrutiny, despite the enthusiastic work by a Wikipedian-in-Residence no new coverage has surfaced. It fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. None of the biographical information is cited to independent sources. We have one lengthy review of an exhibition of work by the collective "JOGGING", of which Troemel is a part. But one review of a group show does not equate to notability of Troemel or his artwork. The lengthy interview in The Daily Dot is obviously Troemel speaking at length about his own work (evidently not a reliable secondary source). There is a short intro in the Huffington Post about his Etsy store, and then another lengthy interview. As the nominator says, Troemel didn't exhibit at MoMA PS1, he was a speaker at a book launch. I think we need to recognise that self-publicists on the internet can give themselves the mistaken feeling that they are widely known and important. There's still little evidence that Troemel has been widely noticed. Bear in mind I dislike recommending articles about artists for deletion, but this guy is young, active throughout the internet age, working in the middle of a major US city, so if there is any significant coverage about him it is likely to be available online. Sionk (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am sick of the repeated AfD for the same article. Yes it's borderline, but Wikipedia is not running out of space for entries. Previous nominators have been shown to have personal animus. Here we have an SPA making the nomination. "Ella", please move on. Note to an Admin - the missing third AfD was cancelled by DGG, this repeat AfD ridiculous and abusive, and should be closed quickly also.--Nixie9✉ 00:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looked through the sources and believe enough of them are sufficient for this type of topic. -- GreenC 06:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reviewed the referenced articles and resources and he seems like someone who is notable in his area, and across the board. BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2014 (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.