Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krassimira Vidolovska


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Krassimira Vidolovska

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete No evidence of notability. The only references are a link to her own website, a link to another website selling her work, and the cryptic remark "Interview 23 May 2009", with no indication who conducted the interview or where the interview was published if at all. That reference to an unspecified "interview" is given only as a citation for the statement "She refuses to publish paintings she has sold". Google searches for Krassimira Vidolovska produced Wikipedia, facebook, Wikipedia mirrors, numerous self-published sources and promotion from companies selling her work, etc, but no evidence of independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the site selling her work is one where anyone can upload images for sale, so it is of no value in determining notability. Out! Brianyoumans (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Actually, she is a self-promoting SELLER of Eroti-Kitch, not even legitimate art; it is shameful to keep her included in an Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.128.20 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * — 24.105.128.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That is actually irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not censored, and our personal assessments of the value of the subject of the article is not relevant either. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't judge whether or not her work is shameful because Google images doesn't have anything and her website is down. Non-notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete NON-NOTABLE by far, it is a commercial presentation altruista (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete per lack of evidence for sources to meet WP:N. She has kindly licensed her work under GFDL, though this should be CC-BY-SA-3.0 now for wiki. We are not here to pass judgement,vent personal opinions or insult people, only to apply wikipedia inclusion criteria.  Ty  03:20, 20 April 2010 (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.