That might be impressive, but it doesn't prove that he's notable. Have there been articles about him or his work in newspapers, art magazine, etc? Have art critics commented on his work? If so, that could be used to establish notability, and be used as sources for an article about him.
I realize I'm biased, but considering the amount of extremely obscure people on Wikipedia it didn't seem like that much of a stretch.
I look at it this way: if I'm driving down the highway and see a giant bronze monument and I go to ask wikipedia about the artist, I'd just expect to find that information (regardless of how obscure they are).
Just some quick examples:
Texas A&M campus, there's a statue there honoring the lives lost in the bonfire collapse, wikipedia has no idea who the artist is.
A statue of Michael E. Debakey outside the DeBakey Museum and Library at Baylor College of Medicine... Wikipedia has no idea who the artist is.
A 27ft tall monument in the middle of Colorado Springs that millions of people pass a year, Wikipedia has no idea who the artist is.
A 22ft tall, 200ft monument outside NRG Park where the Houston Texans play, wikipedia has no idea who the artist is.
To me its more a case of "general information" I'd want to learn vs "oh this person is famous enough" to learn about.
That might be impressive, but it doesn't prove that he's notable. Have there been articles about him or his work in newspapers, art magazine, etc? Have art critics commented on his work? If so, that could be used to establish notability, and be used as sources for an article about him.