Deletion of Nemo Gould (2nd nomination)

Comment: notable modern artist who meets . See  in http://www.sfgate.com/art/article/Nemo-Gould-combs-depths-of-imagination-to-create-5478620.php SF Gate and https://www.wired.com/2007/05/nemo_gould_and_/ Wired
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Commenting about every single source and analyzing them is not bludgeoning them, because it shows the exact concerns here. Considering , 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC)

Comment: 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 .   Also, Nominator's use of  has become tiresome and disruptive
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST||WP:BLUDGEON)

Comment: Meets . The subject has received significant coverage in ''multiple'' published secondary sources: https://www.wired.com/2007/05/nemo_gould_and_/ ''Wired'', http://www.sfgate.com/art/article/Nemo-Gould-combs-depths-of-imagination-to-create-5478620.php ''San Francisco Chronicle'', https://www.wired.com/2008/05/giant-deep-sea/ ''wired'' (short article). There's also http://makezine.com/2014/02/20/nemo-goulds-kinetic-cephalopods/ this extensive article from Make (magazine)|''Make'' magazine, but it's mostly an interview
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)