Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Chorabik

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Chorabik

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:AUTHOR, WP:ARTIST, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. Sole claim to fame is local exhibitions and awards of no clear notability. I can find no independent coverage of him online in WP:RS. Speedy deletion nomination by User:Death pool was contested without comment by a second WP:SPA. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything is too recent. He's had some minor exhibitions: in a hospital, a community centre, and in what I'm guessing are small art galleries or one-off art spaces. His "notable work" is a recent piece which has the hallmarks of a hoax: "This piece was displayed with a 30,000 CAN dollar price tag and a red sticker. It is traditional for art galleries to display artwork with a red sticker when it has been sold, so it is a logical conclusion to believe it was purchased for that price, though it has not been confirmed by the artist or gallery." This sounds like someone is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote that stunt. Likewise, the contested deletion notice on the talk page states that he is "an important artist in the Vancouver community and I believe he deserves recognition for his work" and that "Wikipedia deserves to have his name on their page." (What did Wikipedia ever do to deserve that?) Obviously that's not what Wikipedia is for.

In addition, the article creator has attempted twice to list the artist in the lead for Vancouver School, claiming, without sources, that Chorabik is an important member of the Vancouver School along with the likes of Jeff Wall and Stan Douglas. According to Chorabik's website, he is still an undergrad and as we can see, he's only had a few non-notable exhibitions and no coverage. The article author also created an article, now speedy deleted, about a recent exhibition that Chorabik was in. Clearly, this is a case of someone attempting to use Wikipedia to launch a career. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST and violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. freshacconci (✉) 14:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete freshacconci has spelled it all out. I will add that his BC Arts Council award is a scholarship which doesn't count here. --Theredproject (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability whatsoever. Exhibitions list reads like a CV of odd jobs. No independent critical sources. I don't think it is a hoax, but rather a hyped-up attempt at getting a page by someone who is not notable.104.163.147.121 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, as well as freshacconci's forensic effort. -The Gnome (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here constitutes an automatic free pass over our notability standards for artists, and there's no evidence of the reliable source coverage needed to get him over WP:GNG. Artists are not all automatically accepted as notable just because primary sources can technically be shown as cursory verification that they and their work exist — Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform, but an encyclopedia on which certain standards of notability and sourceability have to be attained before an article becomes appropriate, and nothing claimed or sourced here meets those required standards. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2018 (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.