Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Gabrichidze

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Note: this vote features prominent astroturfing for keep.

Nick Gabrichidze
''-The text posted here by "Ell" at 17/06 6:37 was moved to the project descussion page ( Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Nick Gabrichidze )because one person can vote only once. But thanx for contibution dear Ell :) The original vote is placed at the bottom of the page(if somebody alse will vote please do so there)-''

del. self-promotion, original research, nonverifiable, nonnotable. Of google hits, vast majority are online catalogs of art and gabrishidze's signatures in posts. Not a single external reference. Self-promotion is also spammed across several articles, embedded, I admit, into serious contributions. But still sucks. mikka (t) 20:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Google can obvoiusely display only the "on-line" material including catalogs so this claim isn't relevant; however Google shows significant presense of tis atists works in the different collections and popular data base, which makes it iteresting for wikipedia users

Autors: 1:26 am, Amsterdam time, 14 June 2005
 * Impotant note To solve the verifability problem the date of publication which is mentioned in the artickle is corrected. Correct date is: "Het Parool", 25 July 1998, page 2. Our apologies for inconvinience and many thanks for mikkalai for notice

This note was inserted into the body progressing discussion. For details of dicussion please see below:

Ä
 * The availablity of artists works in different catalogs is in fact proof of emerging popularity.
 * most cathalogs shown both in Google and Yahoo do not have gabrichidze'ssignature.
 * The activity of Nick Gabrichidze as significant on-line journalist is of course reflected with a significant number of on-line publications which yo have noticed
 *  (Unsigned edit by )
 * who is Jumber, and what makes you think his point is invalid?
 * I am very active online. But until someone else writes an article about me, I am not going to land into wikipedia. mikka (t) 00:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact you have a page here, with a photo of your own self, links to your articles and image of the Bolshevik star you have earned in your youth. You do not reveal your real name but its your own business after all. You don&#8217;t do it, Nick Gabrichidze does.. So? If the current position of Nick Gabrichidze page is frustrating for you it can be simply relocated as his user page: still it will be linked to surrealism, (most editors there seem to like his work), necessary political threads and pop art, so people would keep coming..
 * It is your business, but not a valid point. First of all we are not sure if Gabrichidze actually wrote the article himself, or posted it himself. It could be a text written by some Gabrichidze-friendly critic ( jumber ?), or some gallery which has his exhibition coming. Besides even if he did, it is normal; even if it is not common in wikipedia technically speaking.. Possibly you are not familiar with an art world. Most galleries ask artists to write artists statements themselves, so what you see later in the newspaper as a "critical article" is mostly work of the artists themselves; unless press wants to bury their carriers of course. Besides Gabrichidze is listed as surrealist and aggressive self-promotion is a trade mark of surrealism, particularly of Salvador Dali. Note:typos corrected. Autors 2:47 Amsterdam time, 14/07/2005
 * Delete Surely they can get a better photo for one who "is still the mater of political controversy"! Sonic Mew 20:31, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Jinkleberries 20:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today.  Tobycat 21:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no need to discuse a personalities unless they violating a code of conduct at this particular discussion (Unsigned edit by )'
 * Keep There ARE external refernces (such as expatica link, plus peference to the "Het Parool"(verifiable in any libruary). Big number of reference would make artickle look like a resume I guess. No proof of self-promotion but the articke could be a contribution by one of the art agensies who work with this particular artist, which is indeed acceptable for active artist. Jumber 23:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A new account. mikka (t) 00:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. --Xcali 04:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The great Russian writer Bulgakov once wrote:


 * "To see that Dostoevsky is a great writer one should not ask for his reference. Seeing one of his books would be enough"


 * Same applies for artists. I enjoyed seeing his artwork here Lola pianola 11 : 09, 13 Jun (UTC)
 * user's first and second edits on Wikipedia are to this VFD page.


 * Delete - non-notable. --FCYTravis 10:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. It is an article about the un-official, so called underground activity: both in the fields of journalism and arts. Even in his choise of politics. Either we remove articles regarding alternative forms of journalism, arts and politics(I mean graffiti, murals, Online journalism or accept the fact that Gabrichidze is indeed the most notable representative of that sector of society. Please remeber that number of coorporate serch engine hits or amount of headlines aren't neccesarily the sighn of significance. Kaji1 14 : 08, 13 Jun (UTC)
 * New user. mikka (t) 21:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Art is not the same as let's say MTV when you discuss how notable the artist is. Self-promotion? Maybe but artists who is not self-promoting himself should consider retirement. If we remove him we should remove Keith Haring too Erin23 3 : 07 pm, 13 June (UTC)
 * New user. mikka (t) 21:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Keith Haring is already dead. It's known that artists should die first to get recognition. Let's make an exception and keep this page:)Pop culture highway 15:36, 13 June
 * Comment: Whoever closes this vote should note that the last three users all did their first edits after this article was nominated for VfD and somehow mysteriously all found their way to this vote.  Also note that the subject of this article has been added to several legitmate art articles including Art deco and Surrealism. DS1953 14:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So what's your point?
 * If you will check surrealism page you will see that the image of "Chess revolution"(good work don't you think) .[[Image:Chess.jpg|thumb|100px|Chess revolution]]was added by the author of the same article we have to WfD here; but the link from painting directly to this article was created by User:Sparkit who is a long time wiki editor

If you ask me image belongs there; there is nothing more surrealist then that piece in contemporary art(my personal opinion). Pity if we will remove it because the artists "official status" does not satisfy some ones pedantism
 * If you ask me, my 12-year old daughter may do better than this piece of pretentious daub. mikka (t) 15:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And please, mikka do not take issue with deletion of this page so much to the heart. It is just an art page, matter of taste after all. If people like his art he will be considered(if is not already considered) great, if people will like it not then... Besides unless someone will prove the opposite, there is no grounds to claim plagiarism. For the lovers of &#8220;conspiracy theories&#8221;: I registered purely to defend nick. I do not know the artist personally, but have seen his displays and murals, and I am in the mailing list of one of galleries which works with Nick. I was actually informed by them through email that now Nick has a wikipedia page, came here to check it out and found out that page it marked for deletion (I guess if Nick will keep up his good work I will create a new page for this artist myself, even if this one will be deleted). I opened an account to edit this page, but in a meanwhile I found out that page of other Amsterdam&#8217;s cultural phenomena, the Boom Chicago theater is inaccurate too, so I edited it as well. I hope the fact that I am fun of Nick Gabrichidze&#8217;s art does not disqualify my vote. I believe that when coming to art, music or love only cyborgs are neutral.PeterPan1 19:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Your daughter is really talented then, no kidding. Of course it is too early to allow her to open even user account here, but you must have already set some on-line photo album or even website with her paintings. Can I see it? I am really interested. I know some gallery owners who exhibit prodigy kids, so may be I would even arrange an exposition&#8230; Can you please post a link here?
 * Delete - not notable. DS1953 14:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to your opinion can you spare some more minutes of your valuable time to explain us your point of view in details? Thanks in advance.
 * Keep Obviously artists and also scientists do not make headlines everyday. If we will begin removing people because they have not enough hits in the corporate websites and traditional media, soon wiki will have only the MTV stars and top politicians left Punkpunk 17:37, 13 Jun 2005
 * New user. mikka (t) 21:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not obviously. Notable artists and scientists do make headlines. We don't have articles about each and every professor in the world. They are normal people, who do their noral job. The guy that owns pizza hut across my office is just as deserving as Bush before the face of God. Biu obviously there is some difference betwen them. Another reson is verifiability of information about him. I don't believe a single word of the wikipedia article how good he is, unless a solid reference is provided. I am tired to explain this at every VfD. mikka (t) 15:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep For an living artist he made a tremendous achievement. There is no point to wait for official monography to come out, it does not happen until 50 years of artist's demise usually. If his works are present in the catalogs plus are available publicly as a murals then keep it. There are references and catalogs available at search engines(not only Google) plus many images from his websites. I checked it, and I have visited some of this artists display's before, particularly in Amsterdam&#8217;s public library in April-may 2002, very interesting if you ask me. I think his images are also available as posters(I recognize it) in my area(I live in Europe now, but I have seen it even in Venice, California I guess). For a university professor it wouldn&#8217;t be enough, but for the artist-more then enough.
 * I am not. I am a proud Bureaucratic Fuck . I have nothing personal against Nick, nor against the authors of his article. But there are certain wikipedia rules. And I am taking to the heart the thing described by a Russian proverb: "You cannot do this... but if you want it very much, then you can". Well, let us see what if it will prevail. It is people who make rules, after all. mikka (t) 18:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay Mr. Buraucratic Fuck, we have to leave soon but we are still online. So when we will leave,can you please post your future comments not in the middle of people's posts, but AFTER their sgnature?
 * "You cannot do this... but if you want it very much, then you can". Well, let us see what if it will prevail"
 * If you ask me that should ALLWAYS PREVAIL if we want to make World a better place? Don't you agree? Thanx for a great slogan I will put it on my T-shirt.:):)
 * You may, acording to copyrights and GFDL "provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies". But the original Russian say, which goes "If forbidden, but you want it very much, then allowed", is copyright-free, according to the current copyright law of the Russian Federation, which excludes "works of folk creativity" from copyright. mikka (t) 19:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is my first post at wikipedia but I hope to find some time to edit modeling, and also "cat walk" section.. Unlike Peter I DO know Nick Gabrichidze personally; I was honored to be his model for a while (See my profile please). I am a one who introduced Peter to Nick's artwork, and projects. Anyway I guess it makes my vote even less valuable, but from another hand if there is a discussion about keeping a university professor at the wikipedia, then his students would vote "yes" or "no" I guess.. So why can&#8217;t model vote for the artist she worked with? I have visited most museums in europe,and beleive me, seeing the original works of great masters makes same impact as seeing the original work of Nick Gabrichidze. HIS WORK IS GREAT. I know my statement is purely emotional, there is no logic in it; so I do not want to argue about it, but I have a right to say my opinion here as far as I understand, so I use this right. And to get some proof that Nick does what he does, best thing to do for you mikka would be to see it by your own eyes. Te next public project by Nick Gabrichidze will be changing an interior of Holland Casino in Amsterdam, opening is at July 28 here is a link. You are welcome to show up. Nick will be at the opening himself, you can introduce yourself to him and I am sure you will get a free drink and will enjoy rest of the evening and both show and paintings..Knutson
 * Keep To be honest I am writing this sitting next to Peter, and using same PC, so in theory you may consider our vote "one vote", but I am different person, so I think it would be fair to count two. It's up to you of course. Anyway, I am professional model, my name is also Erin (there are some other Erin&#8217;s here, among Nick Gabrichidze &#8220;fun-club&#8221; I see, can I send you an email?)
 * One last comment from Knutson and Peter I disagree with mikka but at least he has enough respect for users to make his point clear and argue for it. So could other guys who vote for "delete" spare some of heir time and present us with some arguments? I am sure they can find some, after all Nick isn&#8217;t Da Vinci,;) yet.. It&#8217;s just so arrogant to post one word like "irrelevant" or "vanity" and go away.
 * Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 19:08, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
 * Keep My private opinion: thinking that request for VfD from mikka  is little biased in that case judging by his actions the discussion about same person at another thread. I am ethnic Caucasian(Azeri )myself and I am shocked how deep the hostility goes sometimes(i mean the other thread not here). I checked many articles about other artists and found even less sources of notability; as matter of fact this has much more then 75% of artists. I wonder if the user who started this thread would ever have such a big interest in fine arts if not Mr. Gabrichidze's mention regarding caucasophobia; would be interesting to see how frequently mikka is participating in editing art pages.. Everybody has a right to put a deletion request at this board as far as I understood, but I guess to give ones self this right, this person should have at least some professional competence in the matter. I would not give myself a right to request the deletion of pages about microbiology because I am not a microbiologist. And the fact that one user has put two pages regarding the same person for deletion within less then few days; from those two at least one(not this one but another, about politics, the caucasophobia one) with no grounds at all, gives away serious level of prejudice. But could be I am wrong. I am not going to argue about it here anyway, I just wrote my opinion once. The request for deletion is biased.I do not know how good is Mr. Gabrichidze as an artist though, I am not an art critic. He makes lot of hits at search engines but for me it is not an illustration of anything. But until someone will come out with some competent comment about his art, not &#8220;my daughter can do better&#8221; I will stand for "keep him here". I am new user I know. I came simply from caucasophobia link, where I participate. Musavatist 11:51, 2005 Jun 13
 * New user. mikka (t) 21:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Gues what, I came from caucasophobia link as well. And it just happened that we have different opinions about both articles. Your attitude to my opinion exactly of the kind that is expressed in the caucaso article: if I am against a Caucasian, then I am a biased and hostile caucasophob. Nevertheless, I am repeating personally to you again: the probliem is not in Nick, but in the article. It is not based on a published opinion of an expert (I don't have to be an expert in microbiology to see that), but someone's personal essay. Allah akbar! mikka 23:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note:Please discuss the artickle about caucasophobia at this link Votes for deletion/Caucasophobia Autors


 * Delete - this guy or a friend is becoming a pest by vandalising articles with self promotion material. -- Solipsist 21:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This flock of new editors suddenly popped up from out of nowhere just to vote for their(?) beloved artist looks extremely suspicious for Astroturfing mikka (t) 17:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I guess the problem is already solved but I still want to cast my vote as long I am here.I live in Europe and I am an art lover, so defenetely know Nick Gabrichidze's art.But I am not surprised that many people outside Europe do not know him, because art is not well promoted by coorporate media..Anyway I think the people who complain about notability have a point. "Autors"(authors) of this artickle should put some more articles about Nick from mainstream European media here to close all arguments against him. I hope (I am sure) there are some available. Evelina 18:25 June 14 2005 (UTC)
 * New user. mikka (t) 21:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability not established. I also deleted Nick Gabrichidze from among the noted artists and designers list in the art deco article. The photo of his painting                                                                                                                                                              in the surrealism article should also be removed; are Gabrichidze's supporters really maintaining that he is among the most important surrealists? carmeld1 00:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia does not yet have a User page called Carmeld1 (just for the record)Authors; 11:30, 15/07/2005 Amsterdam

-''Beleive it or not, it is not sock puppet breach. But some "keep" votes(especially recent) are so poorely edited that VfD page would bebeter of without them..''
 * Delete, nn, sock puppet breach. RickK 23:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

"The photo of his painting in the surrealism article should also be removed; are Gabrichidze's supporters really maintaining that he is among the most important surrealists?" We believe that this particular work is. Art is a mater of opinion. Your is taken into the consideration but please respect other people&#8217;s opinion too..Authors; 11:30, 15/07/2005 Amsterdam


 * Delete, self-promotion. I checked Lexis-Nexis for his name and it is not referenced even once in a single US news source; checking European sources there was one article that mentioned him, however.  I'm not sure if it's enough to merit a wikipedia entry.  My advice - Nick, wait until more articles are published about you and then someone else decides it is notable enough to include in wikipedia. --csloat 21:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"*Keep I want to support Nick, whose creativity very much to like me. Pictures of Nick are wonderful. It is very bad, that I have not seen here my favourite picture " the Flying Dutch ", but I think, that it can be corrected Ell 12 : 08 pm, 18 June (UTC) This is a vote cast by a phisical person,and I know her well, but it is so poorely etided that creates wrong impression. You may disqualify it if it lookssuspiciousAuthors

Anyway this vote went out of hand anyway, so could be better for all to close it up..

Keep and cleanup. --sparkit (talk) 14:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable. Also, there seems to be a rush of new editors who only started editing in order to vote keep for this article, which looks very much like sockpuppets to me -- Chris 73 Talk 17:30, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable vanity. Self-promoting his art in unrelated articles like Zbigniew Brzezinski, of all places. --Kevin Myers 22:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and sanction user. It's bad enough that he created an article on himself to promote his work, he then had the nerve to add his work to surrealism and even Plato. 172 12:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely a vanity page; also, use of sockpuppets. (Also, awful English, from both Gabrichidze and socks; I'm going to go clean up some of their(?) contribs now.) --Quuxplusone 22:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep but cleanup and do sanction user!!!. There are many less notable people who have article in WP. Cleanup, so it becomes less of an ad. His behavior of inserting his images to Surrealism, Plato, etc. should be sanctioned if policy permits. In spite of this, I would keep this article if someone cleans it up. -Irpen

23:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * non-vote talk moved to talk page. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .