Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Mihaly


 * 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   no consensus. Silly arguments on both sides were discounted. Suggest talkpage discussion before we wind up here again. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Mihaly

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about an artist. Claims are made that subject is notable in his own right. But I get only 100+ g-hits - (see ). There is no reason to suspect anything other than good faith on the part of the article creator, and work has clearly been put into the piece, but it also looks a little like a possible WP:CONFLICT.

On the plus side there is some limited local reportage (university press etc..) and two disputes appear to have stirred some brief press interest (see talk page for details). But as an artist he has had no major exhibitions (national or otherwise), there are no national press reviews of the artist or of his artwork, no coverage on major art websites, no auction history etc.. I think the question for here is whether or not Milhay is notable in his own right? Setwisohi (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete For me as not-notable. (Should I put this or not as nominating party? If not, please remove). Setwisohi (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just enough news coverage to be notable, the story about the gargoyles with the donors' faces was widely covered, and artist in residence at Washington National Cathedralis certainly a notable honor (to say nothing of the lawsuit). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep:
 * 1) Agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above.
 * 2) Wiki Criteria for Notability of Creative Professionals: Additional Possible qualifying criteria for creative professionals: The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument.  Wade's Angel, Castle Mont Rouge, and perhaps even a mausoleum may qualify this artist under this criterion.
 * Carolinequarrier (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)carolinequarrier
 * — Carolinequarrier (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As article creator you should feel that the subject is notable enough. But I cant see where Mihaly has produced a "significant monument"? Can you show us where/how he has done so? Setwisohi (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: comment by Setwisohi above 09:30, 3 April 2009: I am not the article creator. That is a question best addressed by that individual, Michaelangeloh. Carolinequarrier (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * weak delete -- the article is much better now than when first added, and keeping it would be defensible. But WP:CREATIVE sets a high standard for artists (significant monuments, permanent collections of several notable galleries, etc. -- coverage in newspaper articles doesn't seem to be sufficient), and I don't think this one gets there.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary criterion is WP:N. If it meets that (which you seem to indicate it does with newspaper articles) it should be kept. WP:CREATIVE provides some additional points which may substantiate an article, but does not invalidate WP:N.  Ty  10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to indicate either way as to the sufficiency of newspaper coverage -- but when we have a guideline about a certain type of article then it seems to me a deletion discussion ought to take that guideline as its main referent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Definitely not notable with only 100 Google hits. I get more than that myself!  There are many other artists etc whose life/work is more notable who are not - nor would be allowed to be - included in WP.  JaneVannin (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lack of google hits should not form the basis of deletion. You need to address the sources given.  Ty  10:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point, Ty. Trouble is the signifcant sources indicate only that i. Mihaly sued a cathedral for wrongful dismissal and ii. he had some artwork removed from a private dwelling. Which is not much to go on. So a google search is a good indicator of how notable those news stories made him and 100 g-hits gives us the answer. ie not very. Setwisohi (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Setwisohi, are you really going to completely discount the 2009 March News and Observer newspaper reference (a source appraised and awarded national honors for its coverage), which focussed several columns on the subject and his art? How about the 'Our State' and 'Metro Magazine' references which also focussed on the subject's art?  I think this G-hits argument is completely invalid.  Since you want to debate wikipedian criteria, show me where that by itself, it is a pivotal argument.  You can not choose a criterion in isolation and base your decision on that.  The WP-N for Creative Professionals state that as I point out in my initial entry above on Additional Criteria.  Your adherance to this point is telling!Carolinequarrier (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * JaneVannin, we have to keep the focus on the criteria set forth in Wikipedia. The idea that other artists may have "more notable" work and are not in WP is irrelevent as is the idea that you get more google hits!  Can we please focus on the criteria in WP.  Your arguments (Setwihosi and JaneVannin) are not tied back into the criteria set forth and established by WP-N.Carolinequarrier (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Process question addressed by Setwihosi above: Should the user nominating the article for deletion also vote on it's deletion?Carolinequarrier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC).
 * It's not a vote, don't worry about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure about this article. I think it seems to meet notability, but many of the online articles only discuss Milhaly in reference to something else that happens, like the Duke donors rejecting his gargoyles, or the lawsuit with the Catholic Church. I think that a notable artist should have had several exhibitions with galleries and museums owning several works, but that is not the case here. So, it seems that this article is borderline notable.--Ducio1234 (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep has received non-trivial coverage in secondary, reliable sources. -Atmoz (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The artist doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE and I understand the concerns listed above. But he does meet WP:N, which sets a lower standard. He may not be a notable artist, but he's a notable subject for a WP article, which is a somewhat different thing.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wall Street Journal Press: I have uncovered another WSJ article of interest and learned that the subject won $10,000 in 1988 from a college entrepreneur contest for a business proposal to design and sell architechtural ornamentation. This sounds like a pretty strong source of national (even international) recognition. I've actually included this detail in the article since it was neither referenced nor described. This is some further evidence of notability as an artist and individual. Publication title:Wall Street Journal. New York, N.Y.: Feb 23, 1988. pg. 1.Carolinequarrier (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment leaning toward keep...how about changing that picture? Modernist (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He has enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:N, regardless of exactly what that coverage is for. See comment above by Ethicoaestheticist.  Ty  13:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks for the input everyone. It looks like it is going to be a keeper. And I'm certainly not here to run against consensus. But... can someone who considers him notable please re-write the article to cover whatever it is that he is notable for? Because I just can't see it. This is a puff piece (see the first version in the edit history!) by a guy has had no major exhibitions. In fact he has barely had any exhibitions at all! He's won no major prize. Never been nominated for one. He's had no artistic write-ups. He's no piece in any major gallery. What is he notable for? Come on, folks, spill the beans and put me out of my misery! Is it because he tried to sue the cathedral for wrongful dismissal? (Way to go! All non-notable artists take note; get yourself on Wikipedia by sueing your last employer!). Seriously though, thanks for the input. Give the article a good rinse out though. It's making my monitor hurt. Setwisohi (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Chime on this -- the article sure reads as if he's a notable artist, and I agree that it should be edited to better reflect what he is notable for. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD is simply to determine whether he is or is not notable enough to merit an article, as determined by quantity and quality of coverage in valid sources. It does not have to determine specifically what he is notable for, nor to determine article content, which is something to be worked out by editing and on the article talk page. See also WP:NNC.  Ty  22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Several of the monuments have received good media coverage, a sufficient criteria under WP:CREATIVE. The article has been improved significantly with the addition of and elaboration on several credible sources such as adding the 1988 WSJ cover story to the 1997 WSJ cover story, sufficiently addressing WP:N as well.Michelangeloh (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note and  have used the same computer to edit..  Ty  22:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per new picture...Modernist (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2009 (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.