Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaya Sadovaya street (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   keep. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Malaya Sadovaya street (painting)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

We don't seem to have any specific notability guidelines for paintings, but from the references provided I cannot see how this is worthy of inclusion per the general notability guideline. If a painting was notable I would expect there to be critical commentary about it but I can find none - searching for ""Malaya Sadovaya" semionov" finds a fair few hits but nothing that passes as reliable commentary. The references don't look to contain any comment either, with three being exhibition catalogues and the fourth being a book written by the author of the article. All I see at the moment is that it has been included in several exhibitions - as most paintings have been. (Those commenting may also wish to know that the main author of the article has some relationship with the artist's estate, since they have OTRS permission to use the images). SmartSE (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not much, aside from the author's advocacy, to support the work's notability. As already noted, conflict of interest issues. JNW (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The claims to the article on the criterion of significance appear to be frivolous. Evidence the importance of the theme in the article shows, as well as evidence of admission of painting «Malaya Sadovaya street» in professional community. The article shows that the painting have been repeatedly mentioned in prestigious publications as in the artist's life and after his death, including before the book "Unknown Socialist Realism. The Leningrad School." They are available for viewing, authoritative and independent with respect to the subject of the article. Can this evidence be strengthened over time? Sure. And it is also interpreted the rules in favor of keeping the article. If a respected user SmartSE, or group of distinguished users (JNW, Modernist) do not have time, ability or desire to get acquainted with the sources, it can not be grounds for removal of the article, and even to this discussion. This article is a translation of an existing article in Russian Wikipedia, where its relevance and credibility of sources is beyond doubt. Obviously, users JNW and Modernist are more knowledgeable experts in 20th century Russian art and Art history. Only strange that trace their contribution to this subject could not be found, apart from the regular attempts to delete articles and even a mention of Russian artists. Leningradartist (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment No need to reiterate all that was said here . Leningradartist's knowledge of Russian art is not being questioned; what has long been the issue is the appearance of conflict of interest, promotion of his publications, and perhaps even of individual artworks. The characterization of the Russian article as credible 'beyond doubt' is not objective; he wrote both versions. In blunt terms, the user is highly knowledgeable in his field, and is a persistent spammer across multiple language Wikipedias. JNW (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to Comment Here discusses the importance of the theme of article “Malaya Sadovaya street”, as well as its reflection in sources. As seen from comment above user JNW would like to lead a discussion in another direction, namely to discuss person of Leningradartist as well as his own speculations. In case of user JNW has no arguments in this discussion, but he really want to delete this article by any means, he may try to open another debate. I wish him success. But please do not clutter up this discussion. In addition, this violates the rules of Wikipedia, governing the conduct of participants in the discussion. Leningradartist (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The direction is straightforward. Conflict of interest and promotional motivations are relevant when considering an article's status. Regarding other debates, yes, that option is worth consideration. Any concerns re: my violation of conduct guidelines may be brought to an appropriate noticeboard. JNW (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. According to references, the painting was mentioned in Saint Petersburg newspapers at the time when it was shown at exhibitions. Also it is indeed one of the best paintings of Leningrad School, and I think there would be no harm if at least one painting from that school has its own article. Grey Hood   Talk  19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - What's not clear though is whether the mentions in the newspapers constitute "significant coverage" as required for inclusion per the GNG. Many thousands of paintings are reproduced in newspapers each year, but very few are covered in sufficient detail for an article to be written. As for your "indeed one of the best paintings of Leningrad School" that's entirely your own opinion and holds no weight in this discussion. SmartSE (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Greyhood. As for the CoI accusations, an AfD isn't an appropriate venue.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 15:04 (UTC)
 * Comment I think conflict of interest becomes relevant if it's a motivation for the article's presence--any article that is created and substantially written by a COI account is compromised. Per Smartse's comment above, has it been established that these sources constitute prominent mention, and that the painting's notability within the Leningrad school has been verified by reliable sources? JNW (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But does this particular article "advance outside interests over the interests of Wikipedia"? I don't see how. Sure, there is some benefit to the editor in the form of elevated exposure, but to me the encyclopedic part balances that out. I consider the sources being used right now as sufficient for establishing the painting's notability; hence my "keep". Whether the situation is different in other articles written by this editor is of no relevance to this one, and the COI itself can be (and, indeed, is being) addressed via the appropriate noticeboards.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 21:27 (UTC)


 * Where I think this gets tricky, beyond the referencing of a contributor's publication, is the appearance of a relationship to the artist's estate. If that's the case, as suggested by the original nomination for AfD, we've entered muddy waters re: motive, and outside interests become a very real concern. Usually, but not always, paintings that have their own Wikipedia articles are in public collections, and are not on the market; those are the only kind I've created articles about. When they're in private hands and become the subjects of articles here, they may well merit extra scrutiny. In this case, as noted, the primary author included the painting on the cover of his book, and initially included that cover in the article. Now everything here might be kosher, but it behooves editors to be conscientious in asking these questions. I think there's reason to ask them. JNW (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not dismissing your concerns, lest you are thinking that. I'm merely saying that apart from being identified and mentioned, they belong on the COI noticeboard, not here, and that as far as this specific painting goes, I believe we should have an article on it whether there is a COI or not. It's not Rembrandt, but it's notable still. As for the articles about other paintings, I'm willing to consider them on their own merits; my "keep" here (and on Hoarfrost) should by no means be treated as a blank check.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 21:56 (UTC)
 * Understood, and appreciated. I'm not convinced re: notability, despite the fact that I very much like these artists and their work. JNW (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about references: the inclusion of a painting in a review for a group exhibition of art doesn't strike me as especially noteworthy, and falls more under the heading of WP:NOTNEWS as a fleeting mention. Nor does a work's inclusion in exhibition catalogues, which are often commercial publications, establish notability. If we hold a work of art to the same standards as other topics, we'd require articles about the subject, or prominent mention in monographs on the artist or museum publications. JNW (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This painting seems to have enough media exposure as well as decent exposure on the internet. I can't agree with the comment If a painting was notable I would expect there to be critical commentary about it but I can find none - searching for ""Malaya Sadovaya" semionov" finds a fair few hits but nothing that passes as reliable commentary.. For such test, try searching for the "Малая Садовая А. М. Семёнов" (Russian equivalent of the same). Cheers! Oleg Y. (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Re: internet exposure, the first several Russian sites are Wikipedia articles, written by Leningradartist, hence the 'circular' logic I've referred to. After that I didn't see any reliable sources--did I miss something? JNW (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Maybe 5 or 6 only :) Leningradartist (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is interesting and I have no doubt that Wikipedia will benefit from Leningradartist series of article. The subject is underrepresented and question of COI is irrelevant. Even if COI does exist, the rule Everything which is not forbidden is allowed shell still apply. As the user SmartSE says, we don't have any specific notability guidelines for paintings, and, at the same time Wikipedia is full of articles about third and fourth tier actors and sportsmen. Lets keep it and give Mr. Leningradartist a hand helping to proof-read and improve his articles. Fran-Soie (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2011 (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.