Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bead painting


 * 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 merge to Beadwork. (non-admin closure)  J 947 ( c ) (m)   03:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Bead painting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Topic does not meet WP:GNG and is unreferenced. I have engaged constructively with the article creator at User_talk:Nick_Moyes to offer support to them as a new editor, and to explain why I placed a WP:PROD template on the article on 19th September. Use of beads is already briefly mentioned in Mosaic and I cannot find sufficient WP:RS to suggest a standalone article is necessary or warranted for one specific material used to create a picture. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment bead painting is not an assemblage of small pieces of glass... first of all a picture of famous (known) painting is taken and a computer program is used to create a close pattern to the original painting. Then hundreds of thousands of different colors seed beads are collected (not glass pieces, but glass beads of the same shape and size) and each =tine bead is stitched one by one according to the pattern. Because of this bead painting is a very close image to the original famous painting (that's why the name "bead PAINTING) ... instead of oils beads are used, but not just to make a collage, but sewn one by one according to the pattern. I can not explain it any more clearly, why it is not a mosaic. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.90.206 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment from nom: User 47.18.90.206 would be very welcome to "explain it more clearly" by citing reliable sources to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY - that might swing it. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Nick Moyes, You wrote to me in regard of "bead painting"... your words: "I can see that you can make a nice picture". This, first of all is disrespect. Second of all it is your personal opinion, it's not even professional one. Any professional in the area of beadwork would never say it's just "I can see you can make a nice picture". It's just like you would say to a Boeing company about Boeing 747, "I can see you can make a nice piece of hardware" . It's not professional opinion. And with the power to delete articles, it just makes Wikipedia your personal playground. Where is justice and professionalism in that? Bead painting is not only unique, it also adds beauty and inspiration to the world. I rest my case. Best Regards, Elena Soldatkina.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.90.206 (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete this thing that is being called "bead painting" is just a version of the every very old practice of embroidery with glass beads. I had a look for sources for "bead painting" and there are actual paintings out there (awaful, awful things), but there did not seem to be any reliable sources at all that mention beads+painting in the same breath. While it might be a gawdy craft practice, without reliable sources, this does not belong here.104.163.152.238 (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Beadwork. Thincat (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Beadwork as per Thincat. Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Beadwork as per above editors. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge is fine, althought I'd rather delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.