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 delete. Sandstein 09:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Michael Reed[edit]

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

I removed all the puffery and promo cruft from this autobiography, in the thought that I could save it, but now that I'm done, I don't think what's left stands. There is a one event show at a non notable gallery that got news attention in NYT and WNYC due to the nudity (woman standing naked in store window). I don't think that cuts it. Still WP:TOOSOON. Theredproject (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ARTIST pretty easily. SportingFlyer talk 05:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he meets WP:ARTIST because he "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" i.e. the New York exhibit mentioned above. He's also been covered across at least two major countries in respectable news sources, having also had residencies across China. I can understand why the article has been cleaned up, but pertinent info was deleted during the process. No further need to WP:BLOWITUP because this has already been done. Sionk (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would not call the single performance piece he did a "significant or well-known work". Something like Marina Abramovic's The Artist is Present or Vito Acconci's Seedbed are well-known works in the art world. Woman standing on sharp things in a window is a nice idea, but it is not well-known, written about much or included in any art history books. On the subject of residencies, having residencies in another country, or anywhere for that matter, is irrelevant and not mentioned in any notability policy. Residencies are not notability-inducing. The problem with this article is the lack of coverage in reliable sources, which is whey it fails GNG.104.163.147.121 (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So The New York Times and the Global Times aren't reliable sources, eh? Sionk (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here are some Reed exhibitons: FQ Projects, "A Common Place", Shanghai – Bao Shan Museum, "The Country Life" (solo), "Art021 (Art Fair) - 'Beyond Public Projects'", Huntington Museum of Art - "Clay County artist comes home for solo HMA exhibit". Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's look at the links provided! FQ Projects, "A Common Place" is a promotional page written by a gallery. It is also just an event announcement. Not a reliable source. Shanghai – Bao Shan Museum, "The Country Life" (solo) says right at the top that it is a press release. So that is not a RS either. "Art021 (Art Fair) - 'Beyond Public Projects'" includes one entire sentence on reed's work, so that is not significant coverage. Huntington Museum of Art - "Clay County artist comes home for solo HMA exhibit" is indeed a good source, but that is one source. The problem here, as you have actually inadvertently illustrated, is that most of the coverage is routine minor coverage rather than significant, in-depth coverage as required by WP:GNG. And of course this entirely ignores WP:ARTIST, which he cannot even begin to satisfy.104.163.147.121 (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your analysis of the exhibitions, please note i just listed them so that editors such as yourself can have a look at them, if i thought they made reed notable i would have said so, i did not. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was just pointing out how poor the sources listed are.104.163.147.121 (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2018 (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.