Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Grisa

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. - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Grisa

non-notable artist. Nekohakase 15:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I had actually speedied it for failing A7, but "visual artist, using geometric design in his work" seems to count as assertion of notability. No relevant Google hits, unsourced, probably vanity. --Huon 15:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think this might actually be speediable. He doesn't appear to be any kind of "professional" artist, neither the article nor his website (last updated 2001, it's own counter says it's had 258 hits in 5 years) lists anything about galleries, museum showings, agents, etc. He neither sells or shows his work and the article itself says he isn't drawing right now. He's a soldier who draws with a homestead page of his art. I think that's pretty cool but I don't see any assertion of notability here. Dina 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think this guy's stuff is way cool. What exactly makes criteria of "notability" anyway? So the guy isn't famous, but is obviously an artist. Plus, according to what is written, he hasn't abandoned art for the time being, but is slowed from usual production for the time being while carrying out a commitment to his country, perhaps as an act of patriotism from the immediate wake of 9/11? I know 5 and 6 year commitments are common. Plus, since all of these are done freehand and not computer generated, I can see how he would be slowed by it. The fact that he does fractal-like by way of freehand is amazing, and while not famous, perhaps he should be, as he has a unique and amazing talent, and thus should be noteworthy on that alone. It would be a shame to say that because someone isn't a "famous" artist, that they should be removed. I know I have seen other people deemed "noteworthy" on wikipedia who don't exactly have talent, but somehow got some sort of fame.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Commonnonsense (talk • contribs) 07:37, September 24, 2006 (UTC)

• Comment please refer to WP:BIO Ohconfucius 11:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Now a whopping 300 hits on his web counter Ohconfucius 11:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Ohconfucius sounds like someone who knows how to be a critic, but not how to critique. I guess when you have no knowledge of things, but want to appear to be an authority, that can tend to happen. 'Twould be a shame to delete in my opinion. This guy's stuff is quite good. Like I said before, it is unique and vibrant. Perhaps one of you could tell him a direction to go in to become famous, rather than dismissing him as nothing, when he is merely not known, but still quite good.Commonnonsense 07:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You are using a purely subjective evaluation of artistic merit to justify keeping the article, whilst we are debating whether to keep based on more objective criteria laid down in policy WP:BIO. Kindly frame your defense accordingly, and refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you Ohconfucius 05:00, 26 September 2006 (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.