Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Miller (artist)

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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Max Miller (artist)

Max Miller (artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

his paintings are for sale in one gallery, his work was reviewed in a free weekly paper. and he was quoted for his opinion in one article in the Weekly Standard. I don't believe he passes WP:Notability delete Cornell Rockey 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Peta 00:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - The article has links to two newspaper articles and states he has had several solo exhibitions, isn't that sufficient? --J2thawiki 21:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

comment one is a review of his work, in the other he was quoted in an article about some one else. Cornell Rockey 04:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - NYC JD (make a motion) 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC) - NYC JD (make a motion) 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Alf^Photoman 17:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete mostly very local stuff; notability not shown. Johnbod 22:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, From what I have seen from the pictures on both the website and articles this seems to be somebody who indeed copies Goya/Velazquez with modern images. Does anybody have any references not available on the web? Alf^Photoman 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An accomplished professional artist no doubt, but we are not here to evaluate quality, and I can't see from his CV[1] what marks notability from many accomplished professional artists. Tyrenius 03:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for now, but I hope to see him back on these pages Alf^Photoman 12:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I guess I'm alone in the quality assessment (t'ain't my cup of tea), but as noted above, it's not a question of quality. Local artist for the moment with notability not indicated beyond that. Maybe someday, but not now. (Hey, he's young. He's got time). Freshacconci 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I can't help but wonder how 11 (eleven!) graffiti artists of Melbourne, escaped deletion, and an obviously serious artist such as Max Miller can get deleted. All thirteen of the Melbourne street graffiti artists have articles of their own. Is it that this artist (Max Miller) is merely toiling away in traditional art, and the street artists are agitating for world change? Is political point of view a criterion for inclusion/deletion? Bus stop 01:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think part of that was down to the fact that the AfD was a mass nom instead of just putting up the least notable and taking it one at a time. Tyrenius 03:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• and there was a bit of a street art vote. There were various options supported, & as I recall most votes were for some deletions, but a no consensus conclusion was reasonable Johnbod 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Johnbod -- What's a "street art" vote? Are there distinctions vis-a-vis the deletion process concerning articles in the visual arts realm depending on categories of art? I am not aware of that. I thought similar if not identical criteria are applied to all visual art in the articles for deletion process. Bus stop 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In terms of what editors are interested in commenting on, there is. Johnbod 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Johnbod -- There is no such thing as a street art vote any more that there is an abstract expressionism vote or a postmodernism vote. Not in the articles for deletion process, that is. The reason why there are no distinctions, based on category of art being considered, is because the same criteria are applied to all. Unless you can show me that different criteria are applied, or should be applied, based on the type of art being considered, then votes are all the same. You or someone else may wish to voice an opinion that different categories of art should have different criteria applied to them, as concerns their validity for inclusion. I would be open to entertaining that thought. But that would have to be articulated by someone advocating for that. As it now stands, all visual art articles are subject to the same standards for inclusion. Bus stop 17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not wishing to speak for Johnbod, I however took his comment to mean a vote on a group of articles, rather than a single article. For example, if several abstract expressionists were under AfD together, it would be informally the "abstract expressionist vote" or at least that's what I had thought he meant. The reason they weren't deleted was precisely because they were grouped together and consensus was difficult to reach. Individually, most of them would most likely have been deleted. Freshacconci 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Freshacconci -- You are more closely paraphrasing Tyrenius' response to my Comment (above) than Johnbod's. Bus stop 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, not in published works, not widely shown --Bejnar 03:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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.