Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Gezari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Gezari

Sam Gezari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Subject does not meet notability standards of WP:Bio SteveHopson 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Agreed. Nothing here establishes notability. Ccscott 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • He's emerging? Let's wait till he has emerged. Delete. -- Hoary 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is another example of an artist who in my opinion should be listed somewhere. Emerging can be many things to many people. Some artists are always emerging. Is emerging a dirty word? Am I missing something here? Seems the butt of a joke even. Oh well.

Notability standards for artists should be slightly different than say if they were an author or lawyer. People often times are trying to find info on artiists in all kinds of places and obscurity based on notablility doesn't help the seeker at all here on Wikipedia.

Shouldn't Wikipedia make it easier to find things like in a dictionary and isn't it set up to supposedly be democratic at least?

Artist sites are developed differently and react differently and made for differing reasons. These site are established to do something in a totally different way than say a product site. Should the criterion be different here? I dont think it bodes well to pat everyone on the back and say job well done when nothing was accomplished except a delete of someones time and energy.

Maybe the artists themselves should have something like a WikiArtProject site set up separately to deal with all the complex nuancing and exclusivity issues and problems. Who knows? I just have an opinion after having worked with so many artists for over 20 years in galleries, museums and non-for-profits and my background is behavioral psychology, not art.

Also, in googling artists, I realize why so many sites only have one mention of an artist, which is fine by me, depending on the site and the type of gallery, museum or non-for-profit that administers the site. Many public and private institutions only have so much money for space that they are willing to devote and I suspect that if you are a non-for-profit that a single listing can and does go a long way if it is presented in the right, read nuanced, way and this is the point I am trying to make here. Nuance has to occur when subjectively deciding on whether an artist has merit. If a person is a full time artist and pays the bills and if this person is hardly ever mentioned in a googleable manner does she/he not have any kind of merit at all? Please do not bend art and artists into a wikifyable set of information that may only deminish the role they play in our society.

So many gray areas and so many ways to ill-understand them. Please be passionate but please consider that art is truth based in the reality that creates it and our future without it is not a culture. Artsojourner 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, this guy finished Bard. Know how hard and to what high standards Bard holds? This, in and of itself, is something of merit. I assure you but yet again this is only a nuance that has to be discerned. Artsojourner 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a pretty inclusionist view of wikipedia. Just show me two independent reviews of his work or profiles of his life published in legit sources, no matter how small or local, and I would change my opinion. As the article stands, it hasn't quite met that standard yet and should be deleted for now. Ccscott 09:50, 15 December 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.