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. Drmies ( talk) 18:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Landscape (Painting by Zlatyu Boyadziev)

Landscape (Painting by Zlatyu Boyadziev) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

There is no reason given to suppose that this painting is in any way notable. And the biog of the article is short enough to have a section on this painting if it is semi-notable. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Delete This painting is part of the Europeana Art History Challenge. It was chosen as one of 10 pieces of art held in Bulgaria that have contributed to a major European art movement. Deleting it would interfere with the challenge. At a minimum , it should be kept until the challenge has completed (30 May 2016). I have changed my mind about this article. No new sources seem to be forthcoming, and nobody appears to have been able to create an article about in in any of non-english wikipedias. After looking into Boyadziev's work a bit more, I am concerned that the little information that we have is incorrect. The work is dated as 1945, which, given the dramatic difference in style before and after Boyadziev's stroke in 1951 in simply inconceivable. See this article from Radio Bulgaria for examples. The painting must have been created in or after 1953, when he resumed painting. But since we have no substantial sources for this work, I now agree that the best course of action is to delete it. Mduvekot ( talk) 02:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Firstly, what 'contribution to a major European art movement' has this painting made. That's a big claim I find hard to believe having looked at a few of this man's paintings. Matisse he is not. Secondly, the article is of no use to the Europeana Art History Challengein any case; no illustration of the work, not even details of the medium or size. TheLongTone ( talk) 15:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Your concerns about illustration and details have been addressed. Mduvekot ( talk) 19:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

I recognize that my rationale for keeping was flawed (as pointed out below), so I'm striking my referral to the Europeana Art History Challenge, but I'm not comfortable changing my !vote to Delete yet. I think we ought defer our subjective judgment on the merits of this painting to secondary sources, preferably recognized experts in the field. It doesn't matter if I think the painting has made a contribution to a major European art movement, it matters that someone with expert knowledge of Bulgarian art history says it does in a published, reliable source. Additionally, I think that if a work is selected for something like Europeana, that confers notability on the work, just like having a work in the collection of a notable museum confers notability on an artist. Europeana is not an indiscriminate collection of things, but the result of a highly selective process. In summary, the topic meets the notability criteria but the article fails WP:V. If, after the challenge has run its course, there are still no better sources, I'll change my !vote to Delete. Mduvekot ( talk) 21:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The artist is notable, but this particular work of the artist is not, as it has received no significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails WP:GNG. Note: I edited the article of the artist Zlatyu Boyadzhiev and added more sources and this painting. Prhartcom ( talk) 13:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment Cor swelp me. Now that there is an illustration...well I really don't like making judgements abot paintings without seeing them in the paint but this one really does look effing horrible. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply

This comment definitely brings a light touch to the dreariness of AfD discussions but there's bound to be someone coming along now to point out that significance or notability don't have much to do with the aesthetic judgements of individual wikipedians. Uanfala ( talk) 14:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Oh, I know that. There's an article on Jack Vettriano for the love of Mike.... And yes, I have seen some of his horrible things for real. They are as entirely tacky as you would expect. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: As the coordinator of the Europeana Art History Challenge, the campaign under which this article was created, I have too much of a vested-interest in this article's existence to be able to vote here.

However! I have already contacted the author of the article Xcia0069; the coordinator of the Bulgarian section of this project Лорд Бъмбъри; and also the Europeana office staff in case anyone can find some specific references to add to this article to improve the notability claim of the painting itself (as opposed to the artist).

I should also like to say that, even though the artwork was selected by the Bulgarian ministry of culture as one of 10 artworks for the Europeana campaign ( see all 10 here), I fully acknowledge that "Deleting it would interfere with the challenge" is not a valid argument in Wikipedia AfD debates. Equally however, whether or not the artwork looks "effing horrible" is ALSO irrelevant to Wikipedia AfD debates. Witty lama 12:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Agreed, Witty, and thank-you for your transparency, for the added information, and for initiating attempts to (hopefully) cause the reliable sources to appear; you truly are of good character to step forward like this. Having said that, this AfD case perfectly illustrates a common problem on Wikipedia: When you say "the campaign under which this article was created", it reveals motivations for article creation other than the only acceptable motivation: to improve the encyclopedia. When I write or improve an article, I am motivated by the stack of reliable sources I have close by. This article was obviously not created with such motivation, nor with any such stack available. The original author obviously scoffed at the Wikipedia:Verifiability requirement. And now we learn that the single reference the article supplies is a link to the actual motivation for creating the article? No, no. Unless references to reliable secondary sources showing subject notability suddenly appear ( which could happen, this article needs to be deleted. Prhartcom ( talk) 17:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Лорд Бъмбъри has confirmed that an encyclopaedia of Bulgarian artists he found articles about six other paintings of Boyadzhiev, but not of this one in particular. So, unless the staff at the Europeana office have anything else they can add about why the Bulgarian ministry of Culture selected this artwork as one of their 10 to represent their country's selection, then it would appear there is no immediately available WP:RS citations to prove notability and as a result, should be deleted. Just give it a couple of days in case something comes up!

However, I do resent the implication that this challenge doesn't have "acceptable motivation". With a project that asks the ministry of culture of every European Union member state for a list of 10 artworks, in the public art collections of their country, that they think are important and should be represented in the Europeana Art History website - it stands to reason that each of these artworks has a very high chance of reaching the bar of Wikipedia's Notability standards. Furthermore, as Europeana is both publicly-funded and a longtime partner of many Wikimedia projects they have no commercial or POV-pushing interest in Wikipedia other than to increase the availability of knowledge about European art. Now... for this project, several of the countries have submitted artworks that are quite obscure and also unfortunately without any particular explanation of why they selected them. I am not surprised that some of the artworks might have extremely limited information about them - how many contemporary Cypriot painters do we know?! - and therefore I do expect that some will take a fair while before much can be said about them. BUT, I don't think that because this item is being listed (probably successfully) for deletion, should cast doubt on the motivation for the project itself. Witty lama 20:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank-you, Witylama. As you said: "There is no immediately available WP:RS citations to prove notability and as a result, [this article] should be deleted" (in a few days).

Understood, and thank-you for your heartfelt statement. I'm glad, at least, that the next time Europeana creates an article, it will be understood by everyone that Wikipedia's policy of venerability expects the article to be accompanied with reliable sources from the very start. I thank-you again for your efforts; facilitating the resolution of a discussion is always a good thing! Perhaps now an image can be uploaded and article created of one of the notable paintings? All the best, Prhartcom ( talk) 00:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply

With regards to your last comment: perhaps you're not aware of the large amounts of work done by many participants in this challenge already - in English and many other languages. here is the current status on en.wp where you can see how many articles now exist for these works (now over 140, from a baseline below 50 when it started) and and here's a list of all the participants, including myself, listing all the work they've done. So yes, images and articles of notable works ARE being uploaded/created, quite a lot in fact! Witty lama 07:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete/Merge/Redirect Delete the article but fully merge its contents into the painter's article, as a list of works with description, for example, but there is too little of everything to keep the article as an article. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as I believe it's not seriously needed for deletion but it is also closest connected to the man's article. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nobody is going to search for this painting at English Wikipedia. The work of art is totally run of the mill; likewise, there is no real evidence that this painting is as pivotal as alleged. This page borders on spam. Bearian ( talk) 19:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Spam? That's a bit of an exaggeration. Nobody is promoting anything here. A painting by a dead painting that is in a public collection? What's for sale? Nothing. The painting is actually not run-of-the-mill at all, it is representative (if not the first) of a drastic change in style that occurred after the painter lost the use of his (dominant) right hand. If we had sources, it could make a nice article. Unfortunately we don't, so it ought to be deleted. And all this vitriol because the painting is ugly? Tsk, tsk. Mduvekot ( talk) 21:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

thank you Mduvekot. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not and has never been a valid deletion rationale. Nevertheless, all of my requests to experts and to the collection owner itself have gone without result. There has now been ample time to discover extra sources and they have not been found. So - delete. Witty lama 07:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non Notable painting, doesnt warrant an article. DeviantAttitude ( talk) 14:13, 12 May 2016 (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.