Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedric Chambers

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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Chambers[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:ARTIST. The only notable work of art that the artist made was only covered by two reliable sources (Huffington Post and Christian Post), but this is far from being classified as having "won significant critical attention". Claims that the piece was one of the most offensive painting ever created have only been made by unreliable sources. None of the other criteria under WP:ARTIST have been met, and the subject does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, although we accept lowbrow work if popular, this doesn't represent significant coverage. ///08:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le petit fromage (talk • contribs)
Delete -- A young artist who has succeeded in getting pictures into a lot of exhibitions, but still a young man and I doubt he in notable yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm the creator of the page. I just found this additional citation published in The Mirror using HighBeam. If anyone having subscription could check it out? Mr RD (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content relevant to Chambers is 3 sentences and reads as follows:

" 4 DARTH JESUS The Prophet by Cedric Chambers managed to offend Roman Catholics, Star Wars fans and New Yorkers. It depicts Christ being carried by Darth Vader, with the Twin Towers in the background.

He wrote: "Both are prophets with similar aspects; virgin births, self-sacrifice, magical powers."

-Arxiloxos (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The artist made a supposedly "most offensive" work that the article does not even use a consistent name for, disagreeing if the title of the work is plural or singular. It is telling that The Mirror claims it offends certain groups without actually having showed it interviewed members of any of those groups to see if they were offended. Which probably relates to the odd claim that this offendeds "Roman Catholics". Somehow I expect the vast majority of Christians of any denomination would find the work at least in poor taste, no reason to specify Catholics, but no produced evidence of people actually caring enough to be offended.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2015 (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.