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. by a small margin based on the merits of the arguments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhenya Gershman[edit]

Zhenya Gershman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Promotional article on a subject of questionable notability, largely not supported by the given references. The only detailed profile in a reliable source I could find is this Le Monde article, which basically says the scholarly community has largely ignored her discovery. That's consistent with Google Scholar which shows a single citation. Coverage of Gershman as an artist, as opposed to an art historian, is little better and largely confined to blogs or reproductions of her organization's profile. Huon (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is in neutral tone not promotional, and has been up-dated with supporting third party references, showing Gershman of notability as an artist and independent scholar including US News Daily, World News, RIA Novosti,and Le Monde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Deen (talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This Zhenya Gershman article is accurately reflecting Gershman as an artist and should not be deleted. Her work is in major public and private art collections and has been on display in numerous international Art Fairs and art complex Bergamot Station, and has been extensively covered by Huffington Post, Monsters and Critics, Arte Al Limite, Jewish Journal, Hollywood Today, Campus Circle to name a few sources. Her work as an art historian is evidenced by her publications in Arion journal for Classics published by Boston University and was featured by Le Monde. She has since, presented her Rembrandt research in academic conferences including AANS Grand Rapids and up-coming conference at Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sini zaichik (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC) — Sini zaichik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sini zaichik (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreferenced and promotional. No evidence they pass WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepArticle is true, not promotional, and should not be deleted. The citations provide background to Gershman as a renowned artist with abundant 3rd party evidence. Gershman's published research will be presented at an international conference in Paris in May 2015.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy chessman (talk • contribs) — Jeremy chessman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Jeremy chessman (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Opened a sockpuppet investigation for the SPAs. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to Wikki policy this article is qualified for posting and should not be deleted:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. 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 subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

In addition to her exhibition history a TV series and a documentary film has been created about Gershman's work.Jon Deen (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC) — Jon Deen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - I'm inclined to delete simply because she hasn't received solid, significant and notable coverage as shown here, here, a browser search found some of the same results, highbeam found two results and nothing at thefreelibrary. Scholar found a few results but nothing that actually looks significant. If she were notable, I would think she could get better and a little more major news coverage than Jewish Journal and Huffington Post. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SwisterTwister please take a look at the references to Gershman as artist. She is indeed notable as reflected by Hollywood Today featuring Gershman's portrait of Bruce Springsteen for the Grammys!, and the documentary film dedicated to her work, Russian RIA Novosti discussing her family and exhibition background, among many other relevant sources.Jon Deen (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The citation style is messed up, but I agree she meets GNG based on the links at the article now, and the documentary. Sources repeatedly refer to her as "renowned" (supported by this). She's not really an "official" art historian or academic but an artist and "independent scholar." Also, as far as the Le Monde article, I don't think it is as dismissive as nominator portrays ("basically says the scholarly community has largely ignored her discovery", no that's not what it basically says) and I find this annoys me. I would hope this does not influence anyone's vote. Having a good-size feature in Le Monde on your Rembrandt theory is no small feat. What this article basically says is, "Artist believes she has spotted Rembrandt painted into his painting at the Hermitage. Not that rare, as he did this often, and Gershman assumes it has been already discussed, only to discover it has not. Director of the Getty Museum, a noted Rembrandt restorer, is intrigued and encourages her to write an article. Other artist publicly supports this theory. So why hasn't it been widely discussed among art experts? Well, there is the Rembrandt Research Project, which has jokingly been called the Rembrandt Mafia, which dominate this area of research. We have to admit it's true, in general art experts/historians detest "amateurs" ie regular artists. In summary, isn't a testimony of great art the many interpretations it brings?" (Artist slams "the Rembrandt mafia" here, nothing to do with Gershman.) Regardless, ongoing coverage of her as an artist is sufficient to meet GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Based on everyone's input I rephrased the article: In addition to her artistic career, Gershman is an independent scholar and a museum educator. Gershman's discovery of a hidden Rembrandt self-portrait in his painting Danaë was published in the classics journal Arion, Boston University and covered in France’s Le Monde newspaper[4].

I added additional references. Including citing her work at the Getty, US NEWS REPORT, and adding a source for a documentary film about her artwork. Thank you everyone for the comments and especially to Wikimandia.Jon Deen (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote above struck as you're only allowed to vote once. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Thanks - up-dated to commentJon Deen (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The HuffPo coverage - all of it, as far as I can tell - is by LuxEco Living. Gershman is a LuxEco Living contributor. I rather doubt that can be considered independent coverage of her. The US News piece is by the executive producers of the documentary about Gershman, not an independent review. This looks like another independent source until you notice it's submitted by Project AWE, which in effect is Gershman. There are some sources that look like reliable third-party sources at a glance, but few withstand closer scrutiny. I'd say the most telling is the "independent scholar" piece Мандичка brought up; that argues she has "convincingly" demonstrated several fringe theories such as that Rembrandt was a Freemason or that "his name is not what scholars think!" I don't think it's a reliable source, but it shows how far from the academic mainstream Gershman's historical work is. Huon (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In response to talk - even if you disregard Huffington Post entries (which I think is unfair) we are still left with Le Monde discussing Gershman's work on Rembrandt, Hollywood Today featuring Gershman's portrait of Bruce Springsteen for the Grammys!, and the documentary film dedicated to her work, Russian RIA Novosti discussing her family and exhibition background, among many other relevant sources. Her work as an INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR is to take on the mainstream -- that does not devalue it and is supported as can be seen by the Academia as she is presenting at one of France's most prestigious academic venue Bibliotheque Nationale as talked about 3rd party Monster's and Critics (no affiliations there!). I don't think this is to be ignored!Jon Deen (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentМандичка you brought up some great points. To add, though the figure in the Rembrandt's Danaee was obvious no one was able to identify it correctly until Gershman's discovery published by Arion, Boston University. Instead the Rembrandt scholars have confused this figure to be an "old maid" not only being wrong in the identification of a subject but even the attribution of gender! As you accurately quoted, Le Monde points out the "Rembrandt Mafia" wants to hold-on to how they choose to define Rembrandt. Le Monde article shows that Gershman is not afraid to challenge this, and did receive encouragement from David Bomford, then acting director of The J. Paul Getty Museum and one of world's most important Rembrandt conservators.Jon Deen (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with (Мандичка) and (talk). In addition I found a 3-part TV documentary featuring Gershman's career: ICN TV. I strongly believe that Zhenya Gershman article meets GNG based on the links at the article provided now, and the added TV and documentary. As shown, numerous sources repeatedly refer to her as "renowned" and the fact that her discovery was featured by Le Monde speaks volumes in favor of her notability. Jeremy chessman (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In Gershman's favor of notability as an artist (in addition to all mentioned above):

1. See short film created about Gershman's portrait of Bob Dylan for the GRAMMYS, also featured by JLTV 2. See EXTRA TV covering Joe Manginello at Gershman's exhibition who acquired Gershman his portrait as a gift for Sofia Vargara 3. See Larger Than Life Exhibition by Gershman covered by Red Carpet TV featuring her portraits of celebrity including Clint Eastwood, Jack Nicolson, and Bryan Cranston also covered by Art Week LA and Monsters and Critics. 4. See international magazine Arte Al Limite for a full feature on Gershman's Art. 5. Why is Jewish Journal disregarded by User talk:SwisterTwister? It is one one of most read journals in Los Angeles! This issue is a valuable feature article on Gershman's career. 6. Gershman's work has been exhibited by major international art fairs including Art Chicago, Art Platform LA, San Francisco Art Market, Art Miami and is currently on display at LGBT LA Center. 7. Gershman's art was also featured by Zocalo Public Square. I don't see how this can be ignored on the basis is of "questionable notability".Jon Deen (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I must point out that Zhenya Gershman Article is NOT promotional and does NOT "reproduce" her organization's profile. The two vary in information though obviously there is nominal overlap since it is the same subject! Zhenya Gershman article does not promote her organization, instead it sates objectively her contributions to the field of art that are undeniable, unless one objects to her under the cover of disliking Women, Russians, Jews, or individuals supporting LGBT cause. Jon Deen (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Several sources in the article provide significant coverage about her. Here are three examples: this article^WebCite in The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles (titled "Zhenya Gershman, ‘Larger Than Life’"), this article^WebCite in Arteallimite (titled "Russia | Painting | Zhenya Gershman"), and this article in Le Monde.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zhenya Gershman to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not yet notable, either as WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE: The Prof part is clear enough--she has one paper on a single picture. That's a good start to building a career, but it does not rise to the extent of being an authority on Rembrandt. When she publishes an academic monograph on him , then ehe will meet WP:PROF. As for being an artist, she does not yet have a painting in a major museum. The articles says she is going to a portrait in a new museum that is scheduled to open in 2017. I do not know if the museum will or will not be considered a major museum, , but if it is, she'll be notable by WP:CREATIVE in 2017. Notability would therefore seem to depend on the publicity for the short film, The Model's Artist. A major motion picture about someone can result in notability. This is a minor motion picture without a WP article. Acting in it, even in the central role, is not notability. So what the actual news stories are about is not things we consider notability, and the external links are promotional fluff. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Le Monde article is not "fluff". Le Monde is considered by Encyclopædia Britannica to be "one of the most important and widely respected newspapers in the world" (source: http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/389079/Le-Monde). That article by itself strongly indicates that the subject is notable. She is pushed over Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline by the other sources listed in my and other editors' comments. Cunard (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete - Not sure if this is a case of TOOSOON or simply a non-notable individual, but half the current references are press-release-style single-paragraph notices, and I'm finding similar further-sourcing issues as per SwisterTwister. Would be willing to change my opinion but only if some rock-solid refs are found. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• half the current references are press-release-style single-paragraph notices – what about the other half?

  Would be willing to change my opinion but only if some rock-solid refs are found. – Le Monde, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, and Arteallimite are "rock-solid refs" that provide the "significant coverage" in reliable sources required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Why do you disagree? Cunard (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cunard, I managed to miss the latter two links you posted. I'm still on the fence, but I will rescind my del "vote" for now. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your refreshing honesty. Too many editors would refuse to admit that they hadn't reviewed all of the sources posted in the AfD. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Le Monde, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, and Arteallimite are "rock-solid refs" that provide the "significant coverage" in reliable sources required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Why do you disagree? (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)" (copied from above to continue debate)Jon Deen (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unfortunately, since she seems to be a nice girl and doing some good art, but, DGG sums it up nicely here. The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles and Le Monde may be RS, but the former is published in her hometown (biased towards minor local celebrities, after all they have to fill their pages somehow) and the latter has no in-depth coverage (exactly one sentence about her), just reports on her sensational discovery. Sorry. Kraxler (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Kraxler is not correct, accusing the Jewish journal of bias inappropriately and therefore ignoring important coverage of Gershman. The Le Monde article, incidentally, is not one sentence but a full feature dedicated to Gershman and her discovery.Jeremy chessman (talk), 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is an article posted by Jewish Federation just today featuring Gershman's art and a grant she received by the Jewish Federation: http://www.jewishla.org/blog/entry/the-russian-speaking-jewish-community-connects-and-innovates-with-a-little-/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Deen (talk • contribs) 03:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If she is an fine artist, then it would be normal to include information about where she studied, who she studied with, where she exhibited (galleries, museums), and whether or not her teacher or mentor was a notable artist.Simile (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)SIMS[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.