Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikita Denisenkov


 * 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. Would be happy to userfy if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikita Denisenkov

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is a complete lack of 3rd party independent sources to give this artist a degree of notability in an encyclopaedia. Disputed PROD so bringing here instead. Russavia Let's dialogue 14:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

notability guidelines for artists (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Saatchi Gallery, London, UK is 100% such resource not mentioning others in External links section.

Proposed deletion And also: Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. It also has Old prod full tag for further editors

Please share your opinion on the matter pref. if you are artist or have special subject training.

LavdLet's dialogue 17:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I previously proposed this for deletion on grounds of "Biographical article lacking independent 3rd party references to demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guidelines for artists." The Prod was removed by the article creator, but I see no substantive improvement to the article in terms of independent non-user-created-content sources to demonstrate that the subject meets the criteria, nor have I located such sources elsewhere myself. AllyD (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe it has enough BLP sources (Objecting)

Please demonstrate the process of user-created-content at Saatchi Gallery, Art For Progress or at The Brooklyn Waterfront Artists Coalition Also information on Elisabeth (Academic) Gallery is historical article.

Please don't make undo if article is edited and contributed with ref resources. LavdLet's dialogue 17:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

www.nikitart.com as official artist site is enough reliable source of citations for verifications. LavdLet's dialogue 17:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Brooklyn Waterfront Artists Coalition: See the "Join Us" section on the page; Saatchi Online: see the FAQ page; Art for Progress: see the Artist Membership page. There is nothing wrong with any of this; it provides artists with opportunities to get their work out there, but it is not independent 3rd party reference. AllyD (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well. This are notable artists you mention who can use that opportunity. Try to post your photos :). Or just try to register there or at Art Review. Its truly not the way it seems to you. Art Review is a well know magazine. I still believe there is enough 3-rd party notability sources, not the content itself, as it is quite common, but the placement of a content and approve of it by the top art gallery boards. No one will get you ability to post your data on such resources. And also this data is not new. Data might be not so active, shouting and dynamic - but its the way things are in art field. Its not tweeter. People make art attend galleries and discuss things in real at such age and master level, instead of run around Internet.

If you believe some data is libelous or harmful delete this data. Its not a reason to delete an article. LavdLet's dialogue 18:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

BWAC has no web data. Its a real permanent exhibition of an artist. LavdLet's dialogue 18:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we invite some art specialists to the discussion somehow? It might help. LavdLet's dialogue 18:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources indicating notability. The article's novice creator and primary contributor has subsequently gone on a disruptive editing spree that I have stopped with a short block. Rklawton (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage fails WP:GNG. Nothing else seems to support the subject satisfying WP:ARTIST. Novaseminary (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most of the content is lifted directly from nikitart.com. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete on present showing. If there were some references complying with WP:RS, to show significance or notability, things might well be different. Note that I am not criticising the art - for me it is good and ought to be notable if it it currently isn't. But one doesn't need to be an art specialist to assess coverage. And it is coverage that wins the day on Wikipedia. A group might be brilliant, but if no-one has heard of them, they don't get an article. A writer of self-published books is unlikely to get an article, but if people read them they might find them good. Van Gogh probably wouldn't have had an article until he was dead and famous. This is an encyclopaedia - we record what is regarded as notable. Our rules and criteria might not be the best - but they are in force until something better is brought in. (Disclaimer: I am not an art expert, and haven't painted for some time, but I do have works hanging in a few private houses. Not notable, I'm afraid...) Peridon (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with immediately preceding comment that delete is appropriate per current showing, and the clear thinking that explains the reasoning. Did not unearth good WP:RS but my web access presently tenuous. Wonder if primary novice contributor could receive some hand holding re criteria, and if they are in position to offer up qualifying citations (could conceivably do so, if understanding what would qualify as notable, and if such sources exist in for example appropriate Russian language source(s))? FeatherPluma (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2011 (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.