Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Chaldakov


 * 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. sources provided don't pass muster Spartaz Humbug! 09:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick Chaldakov

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD removed without explanation. Autobiographical article (I assume that the IP edits are also by him). Unencyclopaedic list based article with no prose at all. Promotional intent. The sources listed do not seem to be RS. Wikipedia is not a place to post your CV/resume. DanielRigal (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: It seems that the AFD tag was not put on the article correctly (Twinkle error?) and now it has been reverted to have the PRODs on it again. Maybe the AfD is moot. If so, feel free to close it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been speedily deleted, re-created, proposed for deletion, contested. It's best that it go through the ordinary AFD process, without any more back and forth. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for fixing it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe try a search in the Cryllic Bulgarian? I doubt it is notable either, it was started back in the wiki middle ages... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dr Blofeld, the history may have somehow got scrambled, but for what it's worth it shows that you created it back then. Was this a momentary aberration (what you posted cannot have taken you long), or was/is there some (apparent) significance to Chaldakov that you may wish to divulge here? -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Self promoting, non notable, unreferenced...could have been speedy deleted?  Teapot  george Talk  17:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The version I decided to PROD rather than tag for speedy deletion did make some claims to notability. They were not well referenced or particularly convincing but I felt that they were enough to preclude speedy deletion. The current version lacks even that. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete no serious claim of notability in the article, and no external evidence of any either. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The user has been repetitively self-promoting himself in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, arrogantly stating that it is a matter of honour and self-respect for Wikipedia to host information about a world-famous photographer like him (just an example). However, no serious third-party sources have been found to justify the claims of notability and to help verifying the content of the article. It was deleted speedily multiple times, and even now he continues to spam admin talks with the contents of the article. I'm not sure if I have the rights to vote here, if yes, I would vote with "Delete". → Spiritia  20:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: He pretends to be one of the top 100 world photographers, but this (or any other signs of notability) could not be verified by third-party sources. States (in almost every comment) that it is a honor for Wikipedia to have an article about him, and that we should apologize to him for rejecting one. I believe that speedy deletion is the correct action, but probably don't have the right to vote here. Judging by the bg. experience, be prepared for having to delete it again multiple times, and for some (not very competent) sockpuppetry. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. This all sounds rather unpleasant. Maybe he actually believes that he is more notable than he is. Thanks for warning us. Maybe we should consider either salting the article, if it is deleted, or permanently semi-protecting it if it is not. Perhaps we need a coordinated cross-Wikipedias approach to blocks and vandalism to stop people blocked from one language's Wikipedia just jumping across and causing more trouble on another one? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To my observations, it is an extremely rare (practically nonexistent) case when someone is destructive in one language branch (or project) to the degree of being blocked, and constructive in another. Could it be a good idea to introduce global blocks, and in fact, to make them default? -- Григор Гачев (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 02:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The IP that created the article in Bulgarian has been blocked twice already on the grounds of self-promoting, spamming talk pages and wasting the time of several users. He has been given guidance and plenty of tips but keeps on reposting this article, which will lead in one way or another to his perm ban. The user wouldn't understand the notability requirements and holds tight to his opinion that Wikipedia is inferior to the talent of Nick Chaldakov and we should be grateful for having him included as an article. I suggest a speedy deletion and if IPs or registered user(s) decide to respam the content again protection and a possible ban if this goes on too long. --SilentShout666 (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment and questions. I understand that there may have been terrible goings-on at bg:WP and that legitimate editors of bg:WP may reasonably be irritated to see these repeated here. But let's put aside what's happened in Bulgarian for a few minutes and concentrate on what's happened here at en:WP. We read above that this article was speedily deleted, re-created, proposed for deletion, contested. I see no evidence of the first two. Indeed, I see to my great surprise that the article (or rather, substub) was created back in 2006 by Dr. Blofeld. Has the history somehow got scrambled, or what is going on here? What was the title of the article that was speedily deleted and when did this deletion occur? &para; Further, what was the rationale for this edit of 29 December by Freshacconci? It (i) restores a Prod template, which I thought was a no-no in most circumstances, and (ii) deletes a pile of freshly added factoids. True, the factoids are not all of obvious importance, and none of them is sourced; but to call this a minor edit and give it the summary (Reverted edits by 94.190.193.73 (talk) to last version by Chaldakov) is not obviously helpful. Why was all this material deleted? -- Hoary (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The large chunk of deleted material was essentially his entire CV/resume. It was that version that I initially proposed for AfD (unfortunately Twinkle failed to tag it and that lead to a load of confusion). Removing it was legitimate. Its presence would only have made deletion much more likely. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: 94.190.193.73 is the IP address used by Chaldakov, and involved in the activity mentioned above. Hope this helps somehow to clarify the situation. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep . Why does a BG wiki controversy have to concern the EN wiki?
 * This is not a new article. It was started by Dr. Blofeld in 2006 as a substub, and it was only recently expanded by Chaldakov himself. After another recent expansion and sourcing by Vejvančický, we seem to have a very decent stub.
 * As of my review, the article is referenced using sources of good-enough quality (local newspapers and news websites and a photography portal).
 * After Vejvančický's expansion, it becomes clear that the person has a very decent claim to notability: he has exhibited his work abroad, he has co-authored a published book, and he's a member of the Royal Photographic Society (though I don't know whether this is an exclusive privilege).
 * While I appreciate the input of other Bulgarian users and I have in mind that Chaldakov had some very negative actions during his conversations at the Bulgarian Wikipedia, this is not really a criterion against the inclusion of an article on the English Wikipedia. The IP may be blocked if his actions are deemed against the rules, but we're discussing an article, not a user here.  — Toдor Boжinov — 16:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points. I must admit that I missed the fact that this had once been a stub prior to the subject's attempt to take it over as a vanity article. We could consider reverting it to that version, although that is probably not necessary. It would be ironic if the subject's behaviour was to make himself appear less notable than he is. Part of me would regard that as poetic justice but, putting that aside, I do completely agree the deletion should be decided entirely on his notability or otherwise. The fact that the article may need ongoing protection from hijacking, if it is kept, is unfortunate but should not be a determining factor in the deletion decision.
 * The only thing I would disagree about is the idea that the EN and BG Wikipedias are separate issues. It is all one project, Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right to disagree on the last point, I did not express my actual opinion correctly and apologize for that. Certainly, this is one project and all of its branches are related. What I meant to say was that the decision to delete on the Bulgarian Wikipedia does not reflect the current state of the article on the English Wikipedia, and the decision here should not be based on the prior one.
 * I strongly encourage everyone who has voted or intends to vote to base their opinion on the current state of the article, post Vejvančický's work. Best,  — Toдor Boжinov — 21:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for turning the attention to the encyclopedic potential of this article, Todor. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 00:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * he's a member of the Royal Photographic Society (though I don't know whether this is an exclusive privilege) &mdash; COL [chortling out loud]: it certainly is not. "Add to cart" for 102 quid if you're in Britain and can't claim to be either a student or over 65; the other options cost less. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't help myself, but when I see this photographer's list of "awards", I have mixed feelings. There is nothing notable for the world of art photography or photography in general. The subject attracted an attention of media on several occasions and the sources might be sufficient for us (it depends on interpreting the general notability guideline). The book was written by subject's father, George Chaldakov, he made photos. His works were exhibited in Europe and in the USA, but again, I can't find any really notable galleries or art institutions (I admit, I work only with the help of G-translator and with a poor familiarity of the Bulgarian media/art scene). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 00:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there's almost nothing for photography, let alone anything notable. It seems that all but one of the awards are for website design or similar, and the award for photography is an obscure one for photography websites, handing out awards by the dozen each month. -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question, for those who know Bulgaria, on exhibitions. Chaldakov presents a list of exhibitions. Those that are solo are conspicuously so marked. Most or all of these took place in Bulgaria. None of the venues seem obviously significant, but then I know nothing of Bulgaria and I am willing to believe that a solo exhibition in this or that particular provincial gallery may be very noteworthy. Any comment from anyone here on any of these? Any critical commentary in the Bulgarian press (or even in independent and respected Bulgarian blogs) on any of these? -- Hoary (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick Chaldakov:

New: P r e s s - P u b l i c a t i o n: nick chaldakov biography

New book 2010: Photography for the book "Човекът - мисли, чувства, приятелство" 2010 Photography for the book "Човекът - мисли, чувства, приятелство"

New: '''My photography student gallery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaldakov (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the first of these is this, an article in Japanese about Chaldakov that appeared in an undated issue of Hokkoku Shinbun, one of two newspapers published in Kanazawa (on the west coast of Japan), and a newspaper that dates from the 19th century. It says that he's spending six hours a day walking around Kanazawa photographing old buildings but also anything and everything, for eventual publication on the web. He's in Japan as a result of his father's one-year stint in the department of oncology of Kanazawa University. What we see on this web page unfortunately stops in mid-sentence (it was probably cut out by somebody who either couldn't read Japanese or was careless). Well, to me this is good evidence that at one point he spent six hours a day walking around Kanazawa taking photographs. (Recently I spent six hours a day for just two days walking around a different Japanese city taking photos myself; his are probably far better than mine and I wished I'd worn shoes with thicker soles.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick Chaldakov: art photography from Kanazawa, Japanes 2004

Nick Chaldakov: Nick Chaldakov photography from Google images

Thank you people for discussion :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mick Chaldakov: Nick Chaldakov images at stock agency Alamy.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick Chaldakov: What the rest think for Nick Chaldakov? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * None of this adds remotely to his notability... a few photos and comments from his own websites are NOT sufficient to confer notability.  Teapot  george Talk  14:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick Chaldakov: The notability is art in him self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

specify: First award in II Aria (for installation photography – [Nick Chaldakov - First Bulgarian Desk Top Photo Show] on International Biennal Pleven Bulgaria - only 4 images from 80 images on the show - shown on 30 TV monitors - Phodar Biennial is a large-scale photography project in Bulgaria, which encompasses an international photo competition (judged by an international panel), exhibitions by Bulgarian and international photographers, and a theoretical seminar.

Thank you for discussion :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

New: Representation on Nick Chaldakov photographer page 2 page 3 –  on biggest Bulgarian photography magazine Photo Eye - Фото Око' 2001 София Брой 3 ( in Bulgarian ) In magazine written: Profotos.com – Nick Chaldakov in on of the top 100 photographer on the World for 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

News: [Exhibition Simple Abstract] – “Nik Chaldakov has unique abstract photography stale” – write Dr. Plamen Pachev on his article on biggest Bulgarian Photography Magazine FO (Списани ФО' 2003 Брой 5 София) Exhibition Simple Abstract is shown at: 1. PHOTOFIESTA' 2001 Bulgaria, 2. PHOTOVACCINATION’ 2001 Bulgaria – award, Silvena Art'2009 - Ruse, Bulgaria

Thank you for discussion :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: From where the bold text "Nick Chaldakov:" appears above (just below Hoary's post timestamped 02:16, 3 January 2011) down to here consistsof a string of posts mostly by 94.190.193.73, and at least one by Chaldakov, together with a couple of answers to those posts. (We are told above that the IP 94.190.193.73 is used by Chaldakov.) The essential point of these posts is to give us innumerable links, the majority of them to pages at http://www.chaldakov.com. Those that are not to Chaldakov's own web site include pages which offer his pictures for sale, or do not mention him at all, together with a Google images page, etc etc. I can only assume that the purpose in posting these links was to show notability, but in fact all they show is that Chaldakov exists, and sells and promotes his own work. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Plenty of the links posted above contain scanned articles that appeared in the Bulgarian media and aren't available online. I still can't find any critical reception of his works or any evidence of significant exhibitions in Bulgaria or abroad. Btw, "Nick Chaldakov in on of the top 100 photographer on the World for 2001" is quite a confusing claim, as photography is not tennis and there's no "ATP Ranking" for photographers, as far as I know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

profotos.com Staff Evaluation: http://www.profotos.com/prowindows/evaluation.cfm?member=32 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite various people's best efforts, it just doesn't add up. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

New info: Nick Chaldakov is photography teacher http://photostudiox.com/bg/courses/3.html Free speaking in Bulgarian photo forum about Nick Chaldakov photography teacher http://photo-forum.net/forum/read.php?f=1&t=710724&i=883894&offset=all and officially site of Nick Chaldakov Photography School —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 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.