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 Keep by a slight margin, according to policy-based arguments presented below. Ultimately BLP1E not applicable, doesn't pass artist-specific notability, but does pass GNG...just. Maybe highlights the need to discuss whether non-notability as an artist should trump GNG, but that is a general not specific discussion to have. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

This page has been deleted after a previous AfD discussion, and was undeleted three days later, stating that it should be renominated if no new sources appear, see User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jun 2015#deletion of a page: Zhenya Gershman. No edits were made after the undeletion, and here we are again. The subject still fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Kraxler (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kraxler neglected to quote the full review by Kudpung: "Because this was a very close call and because the closer is not obliged to read the article (indeed to do so would possibly invite his /her own opinion to the matter), I will restore the article..." There are more than three required references that show Gershman's clear notability fulfilling Wikipedia standards: Le Monde article, The Jewish Journal, World News RIA Novosti, US News Daily, Arte Al Limite. Kraxler was participating in a previous discussion regarding Zhenya Gershman page and seems to have a personal issue with the subject Zhenya Gershman - is it because she is a woman, Jewish or supports LGBT cause? Jon Deen (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Jon Deen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: User Jon Deen is the creator of this article. Kraxler (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AGF, and avoid arguing ad hominem. I renominated the article because the result of the previous discussion was delete. That's a fact. Or do you disagree? Upon undeletion, Kudpung says: "...without prejudice to it being listed for deletion again if new sources are not added to it that assert notbility." No new sources were added after the undeletion until my renomination. That's a fact. Or do you disagree? We can't have a discussion closed as "delete" while the article was kept. It's that simple. Kraxler (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Here are some previous really strong arguments in favor of "KEEPING" the article:

"I agree she meets GNG based on the links at the article now, and the documentary. Sources repeatedly refer to her as "renowned" User talk:Wikimandia

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) Jon Deen (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Struck selected out-of-context quotings from previous discussion. The previous discussion is linked as a whole in the box at the top of this page. Also, you can't sign the names of other users. Kraxler (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Answer There is a big difference between "signing for others" and "quoting. Obviously Cunard and Wikimandia feel very different from Kraxler and are in favor of keeping this article without doubt. Also, Kraxler keeps ignoring the fact that the editor Kudpung called the previous discussion "a very close call" with majority votes in favor of keeping the article.Jon Deen (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your adding of a link to the user names at the end of the quote looks like they signed it, which they didn't, and it notifies them to look at this page. Under WP:CANVASS it is forbidden to selectively notify users of discussions when it is known that they share your point-of-view. Kraxler (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment NEW SOURCE ADDED:

Peter Frank, an art critic for Angeleno Magazine, Huffington Post, and LA Weekly said, “Gershman’s effort evokes not only Whistler’s and Sargent’s, but that from which they took inspiration, Manet’s and Velazquez’s–masters of the figure who in their own ways avoided the banal literalities of their contemporaries for a rendition truer to the vagaries of vision, and (thereby) to the dynamics of human presence.” Jon Deen (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"NEW SOURCE ADDED" is a blatantly false statement. This source was already in the article at the time when it was deleted, Jon Deen simply added a blockquote from it to the body of the article. See the deleted and then restored version. It's external link # 6. Kraxler (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I address this in an answer below, but I did delete external link #6 for the sake of avoiding redundancy.Jon Deen (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem deleting it now, it appears as # 6 in the restored version linked above. Kraxler (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question User:Jon Deen, did you contact the anonymous user who offered help at User talk:Jon Deen#Zhenya Gershman "on how to not get articles you create deleted."? If yes, what was his advice? Kraxler (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Answer 1. The question by Kraxler above is accusatory and irrelevant. 2. Instead focusing on the fact the article has been improved and changed significantly Kraxler uses inflammatory terms such as "blatantly false statement". 3. I have added a reference to a book that Gershman's work is included "From Picasso to Pop" (reference 2). I have also added her education background and important mentors including Mike Kelley who is considered "one of the most influential American artists of the past quarter century". 4. Kraxler ignores the fact that I have added a significant quote by Peter Frank who compares Gershman's work to Édouard Manet, Diego Velázquez, John Singer Sargent, and James Abbott McNeill Whistler -- or are they not noteworthy as well? Peter Frank is described by Wikipedia: "an American art critic, curator, and poet who lives and works in Los Angeles. He was the Senior Curator at the Riverside Art Museum and an art critic for Angeleno Magazine. He is a frequent contributor to The Huffington Post. Until July 9, 2008, he was a long-time critic for LA Weekly. He was a past editor of Visions Art Quarterly and was an art critic for The Village Voice and The SoHo Weekly News in New York." Does Kraxler doubt Peter Frank's assessment of Gershman as noteworthy? Jon Deen (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question was "did you contact the anonymous user who offered help at User talk:Jon Deen#Zhenya Gershman "on how to not get articles you create deleted? If yes, what was his advice?" A simple yes or no would suffice. By the way, Peter Frank's testimonial was already included in the article (as external link). WP:GNG says "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject". A single laudatio by an art critic who presents a minor award has taken for what it is at the previous discussion. And name dropping is not what establishes notability. And reference # 2 shows the book cover, not any link to Gershman being mentioned there. Kraxler (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

Kraxler previously had an issue with The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, accusing it of (and I quote Kraxler here): “biased towards minor local celebrities, after all they have to fill their pages somehow” and therefore disregarding it as a valid reference. The Jewish Journal dedicated a full feature article to Gershman’s art and her career. Here is the Wikipedia description of the journal: “The Jewish Journal is recognized as the major Jewish paper in Los Angeles, which has the second-largest Jewish population in the United States. The Los Angeles Times called The Jewish Journal "an influential weekly." It has received a number of awards from the Los Angeles Press Club over the years. Jewishjournal.com is ranked by Statcounter, Google Analytics, and Compete.com as having the most monthly unique users of any American Jewish news web site.” Gershman clearly meets WP:GNG standards. Jeremy chessman (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Jeremy chessman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. The only two sources that are useful are the Artsweekly and Jewish Journal. The rest are promotional (one is written by Charles E. Miller & Tina Gulotta Miller, the executive producers of a film on Gershman and appears in at least two of the sources provided) or only mention her in passing. Two rather meagre sources do not establish notability. freshacconci talk to me 19:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freshacconci Glad you see the two sources Artsweekly and Jewish Journals as useful. Would like to point out that Arte Al Límite is indeed independent and notable source: "The magazine is published bimonthly and international distribution and customized features in-depth interviews and reports outstanding artists from around the world". Gershman was featured in the last issue with 6 pages dedicated to her and her art (see online version here). Zocalo public square is another independent source for Zhenya Gershman's career as an artist. Then there is Monsters and Critics review, "with approximately 343,331 visitors per day, and 1,201,658 page views per day."! Thank you for taking a close look at these and other sources. Jon Deen (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my question, Jon Deen: "Did you contact the anonymous user who offered help at User talk:Jon Deen#Zhenya Gershman "on how to not get articles you create deleted? If yes, what was his advice?" A simple yes or no would suffice. Kraxler (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The GRAMMY MusiCares selected Gershman to create portraits of Bruce Springsteen new ref. 4 and Bob Dylan new ref. 5. Meets both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST.Sini zaichik (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC) — Sini zaichik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sini zaichik/Archive. [reply]
• Keep - per same argument made in first nomination —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:37, 12 July 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) 03:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the two sources (Artweek and Jewish Journal) really aren't enough to confer notability. Theredproject (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Those two sources provide the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. But even if they were not enough, the Le Monde article further establishes that the subject is notable. 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). Cunard (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Le Monde article mentions the person Zhenya Gershman in a single sentence: "Née à Moscou, installée en Californie, elle est peintre, mais travaille aussi au service éducatif du musée Getty, à Los Angeles." (Translation: "Born in Moscow, living in California, she's a painter, but works also for the educational service of the Getty Museum in Los Angeles.") The rest of the article is about her spotting a self-portrait of Rembrandt in a painting which has been ignored by academia. Kraxler (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Le Monde article mentions Zhenya Gershman seven times, not one time:
  1. C'est une démarche similaire qu'a dû connaître l'artiste Zhenya Gershman. Née à Moscou, installée en Californie, elle est peintre, mais travaille aussi au service éducatif du musée Getty, à Los Angeles. Un beau jour, contemplant une reproduction de Danaé (1636), célébrissime tableau de Rembrandt conservé au Musée de l'Ermitage, à Saint-Pétersbourg, elle a une vision
  2. Zhenya Gershman pense donc, tout naturellement, que sa petite découverte est déjà bien connue des historiens, ainsi qu'elle le confie au Monde
  3. N'y tenant plus, Zhenya Gershman demande rendez-vous au directeur du Musée Getty, David Bomford
  4. Russophone, Zhenya Gershman a eu accès a des ouvrages rarement consultés à la bibliothèque du Getty, comme celui de Youri Kuznetsov, "un des premiers à décrire le nu central du tableau comme un hybride fondé sur deux modèles : Saskia, la femme de Rembrandt, et sa maîtresse ultérieure".
  5. Zhenya Gershman ne se prétend pas historienne d'art, mais peintre. "Etre une artiste est précisément ce qui m'a permis de voir la peinture de Danaé clairement", dit-elle. Sa description du tableau, purement factuelle, mérite attention, ne serait-ce que parce qu'elle distingue près de la main de la "servante" une forme qui pourrait être une palette, et des traits qui lui évoquent des pinceaux.
  6. Le dédain des spécialistes face à la conviction de Zhenya Gershman vient peut-être simplement de ce qu'ils détestent les amateurs.
  7. Zhenya Gershman ne mentionne pas cet accident, et c'est regrettable car il pourrait expliquer le léger flou qui entoure le personnage qu'elle identifie comme Rembrandt. Et lui ouvrir d'autres pistes, en interrogeant notamment lesdits restaurateurs de Danaé, qui ont dû passer sur ce tableau plus de temps que n'importe qui, et sans doute plus que Rembrandt lui-même.
  The article is under a paywall, which is why you were able to see only one mention of Zhenya Gershman. To see the full article, search for the article on Google and click on the link to the article.

  I think there is enough biographical material here to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I saw only a part of it, yes. Thanks for clarifying this point. Kraxler (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on WP:TOOSOON as well as WP:GNG. As per User:DGG's comments in the first AfD, she has one academic discovery, which does not seem to have exactly shaken the art world to its foundations, based on the G-Scholar results (cited by 1) [1]. The LeMonde article is interesting (and echoes what is in her one scholarly article), but that alone doesn't establish her as an artist nor a scholar. I must admit that I avoided this AfD for a while because of the vehemence of the supporters here, at least one of which is a very dedicated wp:SPA. That kind of response always makes me wonder about WP:COI, because it makes little sense to put this much effort into arguing a case unless there is something more than an interest in the subject. Either the sources are there or they are not. Hammering on them doesn't make them more important than they are. LaMona (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain I said the last time, not yet notable ss s psinter, and I think that's the case. Nonetheless, there is the article in Le monde, and I am reluctant to second-guess the cultural editors of so distinguished a journal, a journal known for its high intellectual level beyond that of any English language newspaper. Reading the article carefully, I remain puzzled--the article is not about her art. It's about her identification of a figure in one of Rembrandt's paintings as Rembrandt. The extensive article sets it in context--it explains that this particular identification is not widely accepted, it discusses other identifications of Rembrandt in his paintings, it discusses the reasons for the skepticism of art historians about amateur contributions to the subject. (a;; this quite as would be expected). Does this make her notable as a painter? no. Does it by itself make her notable as a scholar? We've had a recurrent problem with junior academics whose work happens to be taken up by a major newspaper or popular magazine, often on the grounds of human interest in the work of someone so you--and, almost always, so photogenic. I've usually said no--the popular press is the popular press, and we are an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I wanted to thank everyone for their comments. I also wanted to point out the other scholarly publication on Rembrandt by Gershman at Boston University Arion. It was a subject of her essay for Huffington Post as well. A few days ago it was featured by Artnet News in an article 7 Reasons We Love Rembrandt on His Birthday. Should this be added as a reference to the article on Wiki? I appreciate everyone's expertise and advice. Jon Deen (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - It's a trivial mention (one of the 7 "reasons") in a blog post at a sales outlet, I doubt it makes any difference for notability. But, feel free to add anything you deem interesting to the article. And, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Kraxler (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer Kraxler. I appreciate your help and staying open. To clarify, in response to your question -- NO - I didn't contact the solicitor as it seemed to me it was some kind of illegitimate offer.Jon Deen (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, the offer on your talk page just made me curious. It's certainly a unique offer, I haven't seen anything like that anywhere else here around. Kraxler (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kraxler, there was a notice on the AfC board about people being contacted by supposed admins offering to accept articles for $$. This seems to be a new scam. Hopefully, since most people aren't editing here for profit, few will fall for it. LaMona (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, this is a tricky one. I'm with DGG in finding this on the borderline of notability: she would not quite make it as an artist, just yet, though she'll only have to do one or two more 'big' paintings and there'll be no doubt. She has not really made it as a scholar (bit of a WP:BLP1E), yet Le Monde has seriously considered her claim, which is almost evidence of notability in its own right. And her striking appearance has got her into various publications, not evidence of notability either unless the interest is sustained for a good while (a year or two, really). All of this suggests WP:TOOSOON - she is on the threshold and while we could accept this now, experience says we'd do better to wait a little longer and see what turns up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Under consideration. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've held off on re-!voting to not think about this page and come at it with fresh eyes. However, my opinion has not changed, and I am in agreement with Chiswick and DGG - she has one academic find and a few paintings: TOOSOON for either category. I think the largest argument is Le Monde article and its followers, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally; it's a great story, but until she demonstrates that she can make a career out of this sort of thing it's just a one-off event. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you for considering. I'd like to point out that Gershman has published two significant papers in Arion, Boston University: Rembrandt the I Witness and Rembrandt Turn of the Key. She has a pending publication "Rembrandt's Secret" in the next volume of WESTPHALIA PRESS. As an artist, Gershman has demonstrated over two decades of exhibition history. She has exhibited both nationally and internationally, including in such prestigious venues as Art Miami, Art Chicago, LA Platform, San Francisco Art Market, Los Angeles Art Show, Bergamot Station to name a few... Jon Deen (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes criteria for WP:Artist. With published works in notable sources, I'm not quite aware of the controversy, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[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.