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. The triviality of the sources provided means that the initial concerns haven't been addressed. --Core desat 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hunt[edit]

I prodded this article because it appeared to fail WP:BIO and WP:N in general, the prod was removed by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Schick and some attempt made to show notability. No references supporting the notability are provided. The article seems to fail WP:V and has other non-encyclopedic issues. I leave it to the community to decide. Jeepday 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ozgod 05:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Besides the obvious name that indicates this article might be a hoax (Michael Hunt --> Mike Hunt --> My cunt), article offers no sources to prove notability. —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Alf^Photoman 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if instead of trying some conspiracy theory someone would have bothered to Google "Michael Hunt" + "Cosmic American Art" (172 hits) he would have found out that there is no basis as far as M. Hunt being a hoax. No opinion yet as to notability but tending to delete due to lack of sources Alf^Photoman 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe. So, he exists (perhaps with just an unfortunate name). Conceived at Woodstock? I'm sure many people were, and even more lay claim to it. (Hasn't "attendance" at Woodstock gone from 250000 to several million over the decades?). Anyway, unless those appearances on all those Canadian media outlets can be verified, his notability is questionable at this time. Freshacconci 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe he's real, but not notable. 2 Montreal paper entries, 2 national mag ones on the media listing (website). Far-sighted of Gram Parsons (died '73) to coin a phrase to describe his art! Johnbod 03:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnbod Alf^Photoman 13:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the artwork is great. I like the sandblasted wooden reliefs. But notability is not established. Bus stop 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I like the work, an interesting, hardworking artist Modernist 02:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like it too, the problem is no ILEKEIT, its sources Alf^Photoman 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a few sources to the article. John Vandenberg 09:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "references" supplied to not support Notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people). They are appear to advertisements to view or purchase his products. Also note that one of the references claim the art not the artist were conceived during Woodstock his images, which were conceived during Woodstock '69[1]. Jeepday 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notability isn't clear cut (even to me) but in the nomination you focused on verifiability, and so I mostly tackled it from that angle. To me, the level of notability is acceptable but I see why you would disagree. The article has been around for a while, so we should be seeing more sources in place by now. John Vandenberg 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My guess is the reference is in error. How was the art conceived at Woodstock '69? Bus stop 15:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Michael Hunt was conceived at the Woodstock Festival in Bethel, NY and born in Honesdale, PA in 1970.". [2] John Vandenberg 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the art, but the references are just self promotional. We don't see independent critical review of his work. I may like his work (I do), but we don't see unrelated sources with some stature offering an assessment of the work. His work hasn't come to the attention of publications in the business of offering comment on visual art. I think that is what notability is about. The Chamber of Commerce of Woodstock are not experts on art, are they? And their real business is promoting anything that involves economic activity in their area. Bus stop 17:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - It looks like several editors like the work but not the level of notability so why not put a lack of notability tag on the article for a few weeks, and then delete if nothing improves? Modernist 19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see nothing wrong with that. His references look good on the surface: Canadian Art, Montreal Gazette, CBC, Global-TV, these are all more than legit. However, there is no specific info on this, publication dates, air dates and so on. But giving the article time to get these in order sounds reasonable. If they don't check out (i.e. just not found or provided, or made-up outright), then put it up for deletion again. Freshacconci 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above (as long as the correct info is included). Freshacconci 19:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My vote remains to delete the article on Michael Hunt. If notability is not present at the end of the article for deletion time period, then I think the rules say that we delete. Are there extenuating circumstances? Then let the authors of the article re-create it when sources are available. Bus stop 02:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.