Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Borshch


 * 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 clear consensus of uninvolved contributors is that this does not meet the quite demanding standard of WP:ARTIST. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Dmitry Borshch

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Every attempt to improve this article, or flag it for clean-up, has been reverted by the author. Article is about a young-ish contemporary artist therefore I would expect to find some evidence of in-depth coverage in online sources, unfortunately I can't. The further reading does not make it clear what it lists and generally gives insufficient information to identify the content; it seems to be to images of Borshch's work, at best (for example this source simply publishes images and self submitted works). The list of works is cited to Commons images uploaded by the artist himself. The external links are to sales, auction, listing or occasional blog sites. All in all, the article seems to be entirely self-promotional, does not make any claims to notability and does not meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I'm seeing nothing substantial from independently published sources in a check of Дмитрий Борщ and still less searching Дмитрий Геннадиевич Борщ. A cursory search of the Latin spelling generates the usual web footprint of commerce-related hits that most any working artist generates with nothing evident in the way of high-profile biography, etc. The page as written seems promotional and the edit history shows evidence that "ownership" is being exerted by the piece's creator, who seems to be more or less a Single Purpose Account. All this is troubling. I will note that there would seem to be some likelihood that "Dmitry Borshch" is a pseudonym, which might open up possible sourcing avenues, but this is merely speculative. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be okay if I add the name of Dmitry Borshch on the Dnipropetrovsk page and see if something happens overthere? Lotje ツ (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're quite free to do that, but considering his date and place of birth are uncited, it might be premature! Sionk (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep 30 sources for a brief article -- which I never claimed to own -- are not enough for Sionk.  I can add many more; Artfinder and Artist Finder for example:

http://www.artfinder.com/artist/dmitry-borshch/ http://artist-finder.com/index.php?search&menu=artist&showaz=1&letter=b&start=6650 http://artist-finder.com/stuff/database/info_popup.php?menu=artist&info=85408

But none of this would be enough for Sionk who is more eager to delete than improve. 30 + more "independently published” notable sources do not constitute notability? One self-published source is http://local-artists.org/users/dmitry-borshch, which I think is worth including.

The fact that Borshch donated his images to Wikimedia Commons (a free image repository) completely negates Carrite's statement that the article is commerce-related and promotional. Most living artists retain full copyright of their images in order to profit from them commercially.

Before rushing to delete check the article’s references, starting with the first in “Further reading”. Here is the link: http://www.theassociativepress.com/The_Associative_Press/Fall,_2011.html

I challenge you to be conscientious editors: undo your delete vote, read the journal above and others, then decide whether the article can exist on Wikipedia.

Khidekel (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And I will remove your deletion notice. Besides implying my lack of competence as an article creator, it invites people to pile on and delete.

Khidekel (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That is considered vandalism, and you WILL be blocked if you persist. DarkAudit (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom, most/all of these "30 sources" are links to 1st party sources showing his art, auction/selling websites, or non-notable blogs. Things that don't establish notability. Browsing through the edit history, and various talk pages, there may be some issues with WP:OWN, WP:COI, and the article creators understanding of wikipedia's purpose and concept of notability as well. (I don't mean this as an attack, it's just my reaction to, when the creator was asked to establish notability, his response was Notability is implicit in the creation of the article. Not even close.) Sergecross73   msg me   20:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

* Keep Needs improvement, not deletion. Woodsend (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

* Keep ULAN, ARTstor, Who's Who -- quality sources. I am a member of the WikiProject Russia. Locksider (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC) **Comment ARTstor blog reaches more than 75 000 art historians, teachers, curators, students. Kulturologia.ru may be the best art blog in all of Russia. “Non-notable blogs”, Sergecross?Locksider (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sock puppetry? Times two. New accounts, similar signature style. Sionk (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You are failing to assume good faith, Sionk  Am I also a puppet because I am new? Tamiment (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Excirial, I have never misused my Wikipedia account. On Tuesday I mentioned to a friend that my article is being judged unfairly but did not ask her to edit or contribute. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines I assume good faith, and did not accuse Sionk of meatpuppetry or collusion because she voted a few hours apart on the same day with Carrite.

I also assume that none of the voters except me have read any of the "Further reading" sources or Borshch's biography in Who's Who in American Art, and yet they rush to delete. Sincerely, Khidekel (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with the nom and others in their assessment that the sources presented don't add up to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I would remind Khidekel of WP:OWN. It is not "your" article. It is a public document that anyone can contribute to. DarkAudit (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No credible sources are available -- nothing that satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. All are trivial sources, blogs, brief online bios and so on. Marquis Who's Who in American Art is compiled mainly from self-nominations, there is little to no criteria for inclusion and so does not satisfy WP:RS.  freshacconci  talk talk  04:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Freshacconci: is ARTstor (http://www.artstor.org/what-is-artstor/w-html/col-borshch.shtml) - a credible source? Lotje ツ (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with Freshacconci - I see unreliable sources including Who's who in American Art. As to the artstor library - appears to also germinate from primary sources, sorry...Modernist (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @...Modernist, please do not get me wrong, I did not ask to keep, nore did I ask to delete the article, I just wanted to know if ARTstor in general is a credible source, nothing to do whith the Dmitry Borshch article. Lotje ツ (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that, much like a retail listing at an online store, it could confirm existence/facts about things in an article, but it wouldn't count towards establishing notabilty, which takes more than just merely existing. Sergecross73   msg me   16:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that as a source to verify basic info, it's useful and reliable. For establishing notability on the other hand, it is less useful. As the sole reliable source offered, it is not useful at all. But I would trust it if I was trying to determine a date of birth or details about a specific exhibition or what have you.  freshacconci  talk talk  19:08, 21 April 2012 (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.