Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cheval


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Michael Cheval

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Vanity article that claims his work is "internationally acclaimed" and that "Every one of Cheval's paintings is well received" but there are no independent sources. I did a deep search, and the only WP:RS I could come up with is this journal article. Of the three awards, Best of Worldwide Artists and Palm are both Vanity awards. National Arts Club is a social club with 2000+ members, and neither membership, nor an award that only seems to appear in Cheval's promotional materials  do not establish notability. Theredproject (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Cheval may be notable, and there are credible claims as an artist, but there are none of the reliable and verifiable sources that would back up such a claim in the article and I couldn't find any in a Google search. Such claims in the article as "Critical and Public Response: Every one of Cheval's paintings is well received." don't help. Nor does the lead sentence in his biography on his website that "Michael Cheval is the world’s leading contemporary artist, specializing in Absurdist paintings, drawings and portraits." I would be happy to reconsider in the face of better sourcing, but I don't see it at this point. Alansohn (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I for one had never seen a section titled "press releases" (since removed), containing a list of press releases released; this is a serious innovation in the puffery area. Another boldfaced move, as Alansohn points out,  was the inclusion of a section titled "Critical and Public Response", which contained only the plain, uncited fact that "Every one of Cheval's paintings is well received." On the upside, the page does not include a list of "Museums visited", so I guess we can be thankful for that. Humor aside, a search turned up no RS, so this is a clear GNG fail. If there's a way to archive bad pages as examples for future wikiwriters, this one should be archived.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2019 (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.