Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Grie


 * 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. I have based the close on the opinion of the established editors and the fact that the sourcing has not been shown to meet the GNG and has been challenged credibly. I'll happily userfy for an established editor Spartaz Humbug! 15:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

George Grie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No WP:RS to establish WP:NARTIST. I have also AfD'd his Interartcenter at Articles for deletion/Interartcenter (2nd nomination). This BLP is a COI and promotional in tone. Agora Gallery is a well known Vanity Gallery. Both books are self published at Createspace and Lulu (URL is blacklisted by Wikipedia, so can't put it here, but you can search for it). I could not verify the claim that "His works presented in the State Russian Museum." I found this blog-like page with photos on it, and a passing reference here neither of which I think establish N. I did look through onesearch and found the cognitive science article mentioned (Cialone, C., Tenbrink, T., & Spiers, H. (2018). Sculptors, Architects, and Painters Conceive of Depicted Spaces Differently. Cognitive Science, 42(2), 524-553.) which isn't about his art, but rather uses his art (amongst others) to understand the science of depicting space; which is to say I don't think it establishes WP:N. Nor does inclusion of an illustration in a high school textbook. Theredproject (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  We Are All  Here   talk  01:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions.  We Are All  Here   talk  01:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete this is an obvious case of narcissistic article syndrome, aka Vanispamcruftisement. Notability does not exist here as there is none in published RS.104.163.158.37 (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would like to ask User talk:104.163.158.37, to abstain from such a colorful language as “narcissistic article syndrome”. You are better than this. Thank you for your consideration! Artsgrie (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTINSTAGRAM Acnetj (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as per WP:ARTIST it has 91,400 search results in google etc. If it is not WP:N, who is? Please see additional sources and information  73.156.11.154 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First of two SPA accounts that geolocate to Naples Florida.104.163.140.141 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It is not prohibited to add, edit or correct the subject info for WP:BLP. It is not a crime, is it?
 * Comments
 * 1. About - I could not verify the claim "His works presented in the State Russian Museum." If something is not available online, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Would you like me to email you the copy of original certificates of the museum acceptance?
 * 2. “and a passing reference here [3]” the Italian magazine Robot has George Grie pictures on the covers of issues #65 #66 #67,  in 2011-2012 and an interview.  Please visit artist’s website for more reliable info.
 * 3. Illustrated History, School Textbook, Denmark 2013 March, Bonnier Publications
 * 4. Bloggers 5ème, School Textbook, France 2017, French scholastic publishing house DIFUSION-EMDL
 * 5. BBC News TV, UK 2010 January. The number of George Grie's artworks have been featured in, ClickBits: tech talk with LJ Rich.
 * 6. ArtWorks, School Visual Textbook, Canada 2011 February, Emond Montgomery Publications

and the list goes on... Thank you.Artsgrie(talk) 20:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The artist is a well-known and established person. There was a discussion about this article WP:N about 10 years ago, and it has been approved. Please see archives. I am surprised we are doing that again. Unfortunately, the WP:RS list has nothing or very little to do with fine-art. There are plenty of other references about the artist in the Net.Aliciawoo (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG, 96.91.84.14 (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Second of two SPA accounts that geolocate to Naples Florida.104.163.140.141 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails both WP:GNG, since here is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources and WP:NARTIST since we have no sources that establish that the work is in (multiple) notable collections, has been shown in significant exhibitions, and there are no monographs. cannatamusic.com, kayakonline.nl, magellansongs.com, myspace.com, neosurrealismart.com, voyager-australia.com and winterineden.com are all decidedly unimpressive sources. The Cognitive Science ref from research gate is clearly not about the subject. Vexations (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment New references have been added to the article as we speakArtsgrie (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Artsgrie is referring to
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/technology/8488344.stm
 * https://www.discogs.com/artist/2451192-George-Grie
 * http://neosurrealismart.com/fantasy-art-images/publications/robot_magazine656667_2012.jpg
 * The BBC source doesn't work for me. I get an error message that says "This content doesn't seem to be working". I'm fairly certain that discogs is not a suitable source. Even if it did serve to verify that Grie created something, that doesn't help to establish notability. It concerns me that the discogs page links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Grie and http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B6_%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5 which I see as indications of professionalism. The robot covers show that indeed, something that is very likely Grie's work was on the cover, but again, it fails to establish notability. Perhaps this attempt at summarizing WP:N is instructive: Unless more than two people who have no connection to you write an in-depth book or article about you in a publication that has a reputation for reliability and fact-checking, you are not notable. Vexations (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this BBC screenshot will be helpful to you. Artsgrie (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me cite WP:N Article content does not determine notability- “Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.” .. so your statement “you are not notable” looks to me more like a personal insult! And a bit more WP:N citing …Notability requires verifiable evidence - ”Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally” There is no mentioning of two “in-depth book” there. In my opinion the article has plenty of diversified references “generally”. Thank you.Artsgrie (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote: "Unless (long conditional) you are not notable." That's not an insult, and there is nothing wrong with not being notable. Please stick to providing policy-based arguments to demonstrate that notability has been established by, well whatever you think works in your favour from the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) and subject specific notability guidelines such as WP:ARTIST. I am trying to tell you that "plenty of diversified references" is not such an argument. If you really need me to do this I will go through all your sources and explain why they fail to establish notability. Let me know when you've added all the sources you wanted to add. Vexations (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me add more references and I would be delighted to hear your opinion. I did not do that before since I considered the existing ones had been more than enough. I would appreciate your help!Artsgrie (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I am surprised to see this article was selected for deletion. I’ve been coming back to this page for years now to see news and updates on George Grie’s art. He is an amazing artist and deserves to have a page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.32.60 (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep if possible, good artist good info 64.134.24.210 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Grie is a very good artist, the article is informative and has a lot of references and external links. Artist deserves to be listed in Wiki. Snark illustrator (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closer please note the preponderance of SPA/IP accounts making WP:ILIKEIT arguments that elide the fact that there are no WP:RS. Please also note that is COI SPA, and  is a SPA creator of this article and also the now deleted article about Grie's Interartcenter - see Articles for deletion/Interartcenter (2nd nomination) Theredproject (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I’m impressed by the number of references provided, i.g. Canada France Dutch school textbooks. Maybe, they are not strictly “academic”, but not many BLP artists who might provide as such. I think it is WP:N and ARTIST GNG compatible.69.247.58.60 (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see any evidence of passing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. There are no enough source information to establish notability as per WP:GNG and no data at all, that my indicate passing WP:ARTIST.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep clean up & add RS nice list of CD bands’ covers it has. Agree with .69.247.58.60 they are not academic per se, but still...RS and some of them are my favorite London Symphony Orchestra for ex. I vote to keep! ;) 96.80.165.185 (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have looked both in the article, and on the artist's website, and done a (cursory) Google search. While Mr Grie has a good publicity machine going, and his art has clearly been used in many places, the only source which appears at first glance to deal with his life in a significant manner is the Mikkola article (at the bottom of the reference list). By our standards, *one* such source is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG; this is not an arbitrary requirement, it is what is needed to write a meaningful article. Furthermore, in googling the author name, the journal name (Journal of Anomalous Sciences(??)), and the author name, it transpires that Mr Grie is an advisor to the journal (see p17 of http://thejournalofanomalousscience.com/JAS/Jan-Mar_2012/files/assets/downloads/publication.pdf ). Therefore, this source is not independent. Therefore it doesn't count either, and WP:GNG is not met. My further attempts to find WP:RS were complicated due to the very high volume of promotional material about the subject online, which also increases the likelihood that efforts to have an article here are likely promotionally motivated, and it will be impossible to build and maintain an impartial, nonpromotional article. Therefore delete. Martinp (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thorough research. There is only one mistake that I see. The artist has never been affiliated with the Journal of Anomalous Sciences in any way besides giving an interview and providing imagery. The same applies to other articles such as Science Geeks magazine, South Korea, Welt Der Wunder, Germany , Oceanside Museum of Art , Muy Interesante science magazine, Spain Madrid , etc. Artsgrie (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As regards JAS/Mikkola, why is he listed, then, as a "Journal Advisor" on p17 of the issue of the journal that I linked above? As regards the others, they are -- like many of the other listed sources -- examples where his art is used, not significant (and independent etc) articles *about* the artist. I'm sorry, but overall there are too many warning signs and not enough substance here to retain a wp article. 1) COI by an important article contributor, 2) general strong tone of self-promotion in the plethora of web mentions of this individual, 3) overuse of brief mentions of the artist and pointers where his art was merely used (rather than he as an individual discussed) in the references of the article, 4) vanishingly small number of sources that pass even a preliminary filter for WP:RS and establishing notability, 5) the single somewhat promising one being a niche publication with unclear reliability and notability itself, 6) strong concerns about independence of that source from the artist, 7) single purpose accounts voting keep in the AFD discussion. I am left with a strong taste of a nest of self-promotion including this artist, with little to go by for WP:GNG. Reaffirm Delete. Martinp (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Userfy/Draftify I would like to voice my opinion. Wiki is the project that was made by the people for the people. In a way it is a ‘’who is who’” and “what is what” of the planet. And this is a beauty of it. One can quickly find in Wiki information that cold never be found in other encyclopedias.  That applies to thousands of Wiki’s stubs with no references whatsoever, but still useful. In my opinion, formalizing wiki to a “club of honor” will make it no different  from other encyclopedias that nobody reeds. Cheers! 165.225.32.64 (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfication is useful if there is some prospect that more and better sources can be discovered. Per Userfication an article can be userfied if the material is worth keeping because it has potential to be useful at some point — they may just need more work, or more time. This article has been around since 2006 and has been edited 357 times. It's not as if this hasn't had enough time. If better sources exists, they should have been found by now. Vexations (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2018 (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.