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 no consensus. I do not see consensus here, and there's no point in a third relisting. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Troemel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

There are literally no new references to this subject from the time the article was initially recommended for deletion last year. The page reads like a resume. The only real references are to a Tumblr blog and and Etsy store. If this is notable then so too are thousands of other MFA students selling their work online and writing blog entries about themselves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryjoy (talk • contribs) 18 August 2013

• (de facto 3rd nomination) I agree with the above person. Lectures, panels, shows, and occasional awards are not quite notable enough achievements to differentiate this artist from other MFA graduates, especially in a field that focuses so much on conceptual, meta, self-conscious posturing as art. Really? This person's UNDERgrad thesis is the subject of sentence here? Most Ph.D.s don't include their dissertations in descriptions of their work, unless other critics have engaged with, written about, and responded to this specific work. Eeks. This is embarrassing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.204.169 (talk • contribs) 24 September 2013

• Strong Keep. First of all, neither of the two users above have signed their comments; this is relevant as there is repeated semi-vandalism happening from IP accounts. Secondly, while this may not be a particularly well written entry, he certainly meets notability guidelines. This was already resolved here almost two years ago. A quick search brings up the following texts from art criticism about his work: Art F City, HuffPo, and Paper. --Theredproject (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: December 2012 isn't "almost two years ago" in any meaningful sense. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - well, I said on the Talk page I'd 'vote' delete if this came back to AfD, so I'll stick to my word! Sources found about Troemel are extremely weak, generally 'stuff on the internet', proving that if your art is internet based it may not be as widely noticed as you'd like to believe. The Huff Post interview is basically Troemel talking at great length about himself, so not a secondary critique. As far as I can see, Rhizome is an art website with little sign of being reliable and jounrnalistic in nature. Lacks coverage that is independent and reliable. Sionk (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB There seems no evidence the AfD nomination was completed fully on 18 August. For want of a better place, I've added it to today's list, to allow the process to be resolved.Sionk (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Rhizome.org is one of a handful of authoritative organizations in the field of new media art. Housed in the New Museum, NYC, it is effectively the 'New Media wing' of said museum. See more here: [1]--Theredproject (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per rationale and sources of first AfD (in which I did not participate), and Theredproject. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Several more references, specifically discussion and criticism of his work, are easily found online: Oyster Magazine: [2], Huffington Post:[3], Artfagcity: [4], Paper Mag: [5], Big Red & Shiny: [6], Daily Dot: [7], The Editorial Magazine: [8]. There's simply too much persistent coverage for anyone to say he is not notable.--Nixie9✉ 23:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete reads like a resume per nom and hardly notable sources. The bulk of the article is career which lists all hes done and indicates no notability.;Lihaas (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm with Theredproject. The references like Oyster Magazine: [9] and Rhizome that describe Brad Troemel's notability are some of the top journals for new media art and the fact that he has shown work at the Serpentine Gallery and MoMA PS1, very well known institutions in new media art, I think he reaches notability status. That said, the article currently does read like a resume but that is not grounds enough for it to be deleted in my opinion. The resume language can be expanded and improved as more research is done to improve the page. OR drohowa (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2013 (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.