Deletion of Nikita Denisenkov

Comment: on present showing. If there were some references complying with , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Coverage fails . Nothing else seems to support the subject satisfying 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ARTIST)

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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)