Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Grab

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 keep. There were policy- and sourced-based !votes to keep, with rather a lack of such to delete the article; equally, the former tended to be of more substance than the latter. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 09:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Grab

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

Questionable biography, includes subject's own website as a source. All other sources fail WP:ONEEVENT. ZarosFlok (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: Keep article, and expand it. It is true that the article uses the subject's own website as a source, but that is because the article is a stub, not due to a lack of notability. Three of the references with the article are about the artist generally, and not WP:ONEEVENT. It's pretty easy to find more online material about this artist which was written independently of the artist. One example is:

http://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/balancing-rocks-art-science-28012015/

Rather than deleting this article, I would hope someone would have the time to expand it. (I would love to work on it myself, but just can't tend to all Wikipedia stubs). The artist is also notable, when judged against Wikipedia:Notability.—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. Sourcing is adequate. Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the standards at WP:CREATIVE. That's what the standards are for. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE Rentier (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw this story somewhere, and it smacks of WP:BLP1E. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You "saw this story somewhere"? Do you think maybe you should research it a little more thoroughly? WP:BLP1E is not even applicable. What would be the "one event", in this instance? Bus stop (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the references, I found by simple google search, I see it as a clear case of passing WP:ARTIST: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc... Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on my initial comments above, and also because subject meets the standards of WP:CREATIVE. One editor's comment that "I saw this story somewhere, and it smacks of WP:BLP1E" is not a valid argument because this article is about an artist and not an event. The references with the article span many years (at least from 2014 to 2017).—OhioOakTree (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with OhioOakTree's statement that the sources span a number of years. There are sources from late 2014 and early 2015, and the 2017 reference is merely a post from a social media account belonging to the subject. It does not invalidate WP:BLP1E as an argument. ZarosFlok (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the "event"? However unusual balancing rocks might be, it is not "event" any more than painting, for instance, is an "event". Sources are calling him an artist and he calls himself an artist. An art form is generally practiced over and over, making it not an "event", certainly not "one event". Arthistorian1977 has posted several new sources in his post above. Bus stop (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is a citation with Michael Grab published June 19, 2017:

http://talemrecruitment.co.uk/2017/06/19/art-or-engineering-we-speak-to-michael-grab-gravity-glue-stone-balancing/

I just added it to the article. This person is notable by Wikipedia's standards, and it is extremely easy to find independent citations about him that do span several years. This article's shortcoming is that it is a stub. That it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability is very easy to establish.—OhioOakTree (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:ONEEVENT is not applicable, because the subject has received coverage through the years regarding his works. See some source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

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.