![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Although I'm no expert, and I may well be missing something, I notice that most of the references for this article are uncheckable and those that are checkable seem to have no mention of Mihaly. Perhaps more worryingly, whilst not the sole benchmark of notability, I also find only 101 unique Google hits [1] - which would be very (very) unusual for a notable artist. I'm sure the article has been created in good faith and I like some of the work; but this chap just is not a notable artist and so would not appear to warrant an article. Are there any major exhibitions which could be referenced? Setwisohi ( talk) 18:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback. I hope to address some of the reference issues mentioned.
Re: reference 3, I attempted to update it to:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1154/is_n8_v76/ai_6537540/pg_5
I presume I am making a programming error since the address works only if typed into a web browser.
Re: reference 4, the desired link is this:
http://www.oakdalecemetery.org/docs/Oakdale_newsletter_summer2007.pdf
The link fails when addressed like this:
http://www.oakdalecemetery.org/docs/Oakdale_newsletter_summer2007.pdf;col1
I thought the ";col1" was necessary for the link to function, but this is obviously not correct. Could this be why the links are not functioning? Any assistance would be much appreciated. Carolinequarrier ( talk) 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: the notability of the Duke Chronicle, the publication is sufficiently notable for its own wiki article. Carolinequarrier ( talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinequarrier ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The Wall St Journal seems to be the reference upon which this article really turns. But we can't check it. It ostensibly makes reference to Mihaly being the artist in residence at the cathedral and to the controversy there as well as to his having major clients or sponsors. Other than that, the majority of references are to college newspapers with the odd brief passing mention in other newspapers (of the gargoyles being removed). What I don't understand is why - if Mihaly has these important clients and so on - there is no more substantial coverage of him on Google, for example. Has he had any major exhibitions? It seems not. Does he have any significant coverage - which we can check - in art journals or reliable online art sites? Same again, nope. No auction news either.... Hmmm... Could the editor/creator of the article perhaps point me in the direction of such? Setwisohi ( talk) 10:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Notability of the News and Observer: It seems noteworthy that the paper has won three Pulitzer Prizes, an American award that is regarded as the highest national honor in newspaper journalism. Though a regional paper, this national recognition makes it a strong source.
Further, the argument that a subject is not notable based on failure to meet some of the criteria that can/may be used to establish notability is not a valid one. The number of google hits and variety of national/international press are not obligatory qualifying criteria, but are examples of criteria that can establish notoriety/notability.
Carolinequarrier ( talk) 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)carolinequarrier
Re: WSJ article The subject of the wikipedia article is Robert Mihaly, not just as an artist, sculptor, and painter, but as a notable individual.
Carolinequarrier ( talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)carolinequarrier
Re: Previously Proposed Notability Criteria in Wikipedia for Artists:
It is not relevant whether the subject meets "proposed criteria for artistic notability" which "failed to attain consensus within the wikipedia community". Carolinequarrier ( talk) 22:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)carolinequarrier
Re: Criteria for Notability of Creative Professionals:
1) Addressing Setwihosi 23:07, 1 April 2009 entry - Please see Additional Criteria in Notability for Creative Professionals that you reference. To quote, "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included."
2) 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
There are several problems with this; i. No-one 'plus a few mates' can make a castle in one lifetime. It used to take several hundred people two or three generations to make a castle. ii. The scale is questionable. How tall are those trees supposed to be? If the 'Castle' was full size, that would make those trees many hundreds of feet tall. Which they are not. iii. Having worked with stone myself, I can assure you it would take many hundreds of trailerloads of stone to make a 'castle' - probably several thousand. This article claims it took just four. That's just not possible.
Overall, I reckon I know the truth about this 'Castle'. The roof isn't right. Those are not real tiles. The window openings are model like. But fair enough, it's a nice leg-pull and quite attractive. Setwisohi ( talk) 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick question, are there two Robert Mihaly's here? Because on the one hand we have, allegedly, an extrememly efficient and reasonably competent sculpturer (capable of making mausoleums, statues and castles all by his early 40's) and yet, on the other hand, he produces stuff like those "paintings", the toothbrush and the rag doll. I've never, ever, seen an artist so capable on the one hand and so utterly inept on the other. I'm guessing he has off days. Am I right? Or is there some other explanation which could perhaps effect the content of this article... Setwisohi ( talk) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best to request Wikiquette. Discussion on talk pages is to be centered on article improvement. It is not a place for emotional, partisan wrangling. An Editor's personal opinion of what is good or bad art is irrelevant. WP articulates a widely respected policy in this regard. [4] So hopefully we can henceforth stick to facts of references and citations and the party that's given us “Hardly Michelangelo,” “supposedly reputable,” "stuff like those ‘paintings,’" “No-one who could produce the Fallsoleum (if indeed he has) would then produce,” “He doesn't even seem to know what conceptual art is,” “so utterly inept,” etc. can end the static of this ongoing hostility to the article's referent. Michelangeloh ( talk) 05:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to begin asking for feedback on many well-referenced deletions to this article made by Setwisohi. Change #1: Setwisohi asks, “where is the source showing Edwards as patron?” [7] Here are two references. There are others. ref one: Edwards,Elizabeth (September 2006). Saving Graces: Finding Solace and Strength from Friends and Strangers. P.141-2 (includes photo of sculpture) Broadway. ISBN 0767925378. ref two: News and Observer, August 5, 1997, [8] Michelangeloh ( talk) 05:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Setwisohi changed the Castle Mont Rouge description to “miniature.” [9] This is contradicted by cited source, The News and Observer/Durham News which describes CMR as a “four-story building” and “spacious” in its Nov.3-4, 2007 cover story, which included 4 photos, interior and exterior. [10] and [11] CMR was featured in at least 4 other articles over a 2 year period. [12] Each of these 5 separate publications included photos. 2 were cover stories. Setwisohi's remarks such as “leg-pull,” “scale is questionable,” “model like,” “very small scale building,” and “miniature” seem inapplicable at best. Unless citations can be produced, the “miniature” edit should be reversed. Additionally, at the time of this change Setwisohi argued with statements made by a journalist regarding what he considers the architectural style, "i cant see how this very small scale building resembles a rhine..." [13] Is not Setwisohi's personal art analysis an unacceptable reason to remove cited references? Michelangeloh ( talk) 05:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Angel-2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Angel-2.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 04:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Although I'm no expert, and I may well be missing something, I notice that most of the references for this article are uncheckable and those that are checkable seem to have no mention of Mihaly. Perhaps more worryingly, whilst not the sole benchmark of notability, I also find only 101 unique Google hits [1] - which would be very (very) unusual for a notable artist. I'm sure the article has been created in good faith and I like some of the work; but this chap just is not a notable artist and so would not appear to warrant an article. Are there any major exhibitions which could be referenced? Setwisohi ( talk) 18:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback. I hope to address some of the reference issues mentioned.
Re: reference 3, I attempted to update it to:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1154/is_n8_v76/ai_6537540/pg_5
I presume I am making a programming error since the address works only if typed into a web browser.
Re: reference 4, the desired link is this:
http://www.oakdalecemetery.org/docs/Oakdale_newsletter_summer2007.pdf
The link fails when addressed like this:
http://www.oakdalecemetery.org/docs/Oakdale_newsletter_summer2007.pdf;col1
I thought the ";col1" was necessary for the link to function, but this is obviously not correct. Could this be why the links are not functioning? Any assistance would be much appreciated. Carolinequarrier ( talk) 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: the notability of the Duke Chronicle, the publication is sufficiently notable for its own wiki article. Carolinequarrier ( talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinequarrier ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The Wall St Journal seems to be the reference upon which this article really turns. But we can't check it. It ostensibly makes reference to Mihaly being the artist in residence at the cathedral and to the controversy there as well as to his having major clients or sponsors. Other than that, the majority of references are to college newspapers with the odd brief passing mention in other newspapers (of the gargoyles being removed). What I don't understand is why - if Mihaly has these important clients and so on - there is no more substantial coverage of him on Google, for example. Has he had any major exhibitions? It seems not. Does he have any significant coverage - which we can check - in art journals or reliable online art sites? Same again, nope. No auction news either.... Hmmm... Could the editor/creator of the article perhaps point me in the direction of such? Setwisohi ( talk) 10:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Notability of the News and Observer: It seems noteworthy that the paper has won three Pulitzer Prizes, an American award that is regarded as the highest national honor in newspaper journalism. Though a regional paper, this national recognition makes it a strong source.
Further, the argument that a subject is not notable based on failure to meet some of the criteria that can/may be used to establish notability is not a valid one. The number of google hits and variety of national/international press are not obligatory qualifying criteria, but are examples of criteria that can establish notoriety/notability.
Carolinequarrier ( talk) 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)carolinequarrier
Re: WSJ article The subject of the wikipedia article is Robert Mihaly, not just as an artist, sculptor, and painter, but as a notable individual.
Carolinequarrier ( talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)carolinequarrier
Re: Previously Proposed Notability Criteria in Wikipedia for Artists:
It is not relevant whether the subject meets "proposed criteria for artistic notability" which "failed to attain consensus within the wikipedia community". Carolinequarrier ( talk) 22:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)carolinequarrier
Re: Criteria for Notability of Creative Professionals:
1) Addressing Setwihosi 23:07, 1 April 2009 entry - Please see Additional Criteria in Notability for Creative Professionals that you reference. To quote, "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included."
2) 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
There are several problems with this; i. No-one 'plus a few mates' can make a castle in one lifetime. It used to take several hundred people two or three generations to make a castle. ii. The scale is questionable. How tall are those trees supposed to be? If the 'Castle' was full size, that would make those trees many hundreds of feet tall. Which they are not. iii. Having worked with stone myself, I can assure you it would take many hundreds of trailerloads of stone to make a 'castle' - probably several thousand. This article claims it took just four. That's just not possible.
Overall, I reckon I know the truth about this 'Castle'. The roof isn't right. Those are not real tiles. The window openings are model like. But fair enough, it's a nice leg-pull and quite attractive. Setwisohi ( talk) 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick question, are there two Robert Mihaly's here? Because on the one hand we have, allegedly, an extrememly efficient and reasonably competent sculpturer (capable of making mausoleums, statues and castles all by his early 40's) and yet, on the other hand, he produces stuff like those "paintings", the toothbrush and the rag doll. I've never, ever, seen an artist so capable on the one hand and so utterly inept on the other. I'm guessing he has off days. Am I right? Or is there some other explanation which could perhaps effect the content of this article... Setwisohi ( talk) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best to request Wikiquette. Discussion on talk pages is to be centered on article improvement. It is not a place for emotional, partisan wrangling. An Editor's personal opinion of what is good or bad art is irrelevant. WP articulates a widely respected policy in this regard. [4] So hopefully we can henceforth stick to facts of references and citations and the party that's given us “Hardly Michelangelo,” “supposedly reputable,” "stuff like those ‘paintings,’" “No-one who could produce the Fallsoleum (if indeed he has) would then produce,” “He doesn't even seem to know what conceptual art is,” “so utterly inept,” etc. can end the static of this ongoing hostility to the article's referent. Michelangeloh ( talk) 05:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to begin asking for feedback on many well-referenced deletions to this article made by Setwisohi. Change #1: Setwisohi asks, “where is the source showing Edwards as patron?” [7] Here are two references. There are others. ref one: Edwards,Elizabeth (September 2006). Saving Graces: Finding Solace and Strength from Friends and Strangers. P.141-2 (includes photo of sculpture) Broadway. ISBN 0767925378. ref two: News and Observer, August 5, 1997, [8] Michelangeloh ( talk) 05:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Setwisohi changed the Castle Mont Rouge description to “miniature.” [9] This is contradicted by cited source, The News and Observer/Durham News which describes CMR as a “four-story building” and “spacious” in its Nov.3-4, 2007 cover story, which included 4 photos, interior and exterior. [10] and [11] CMR was featured in at least 4 other articles over a 2 year period. [12] Each of these 5 separate publications included photos. 2 were cover stories. Setwisohi's remarks such as “leg-pull,” “scale is questionable,” “model like,” “very small scale building,” and “miniature” seem inapplicable at best. Unless citations can be produced, the “miniature” edit should be reversed. Additionally, at the time of this change Setwisohi argued with statements made by a journalist regarding what he considers the architectural style, "i cant see how this very small scale building resembles a rhine..." [13] Is not Setwisohi's personal art analysis an unacceptable reason to remove cited references? Michelangeloh ( talk) 05:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Angel-2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Angel-2.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 04:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)