Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrait of Mrs. Stefka Gueorgieva Otmarova


 * 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. There does not seem to exist a subject-specific notability guideline for artworks, so people fell back to the normal WP:GNG and WP:N and there is no evidence that it is met here - being part of a specific collection is not part of the general notability guidelines. Consensus further indicates that the teacher of the artist having an article does not give the artwork notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Portrait of Mrs. Stefka Gueorgieva Otmarova

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of the many Europeana-contest articles about non-notable subjects (among the many about notable subjects as well). No indepth sources about this work seem to exist. Prod removed because "Sources in local languages no doubt exist". No idea why this is supposed to be certain. Actually looking for such sources gives no additional results with further info. Fram (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. There is no allegation that this painting is notable, much less any evidence for it. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no in-depth research and coverage for this particular work. Also in this case I expect to see the article about painter first and only then about specific work. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The work is sourced. The artist is sourced. We already have an article on the artist's teacher, Jaroslav Věšín. Pastel on paper is a fragile medium. This one survived from 1915. It appears that it is in the collection of Slavo-Byzantine Studies in Sofia, Bulgaria. This goes a long way in establishing the notability of the artwork. Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you really understand our concept of notability then. There are thousands upon thousands of pastels of 100 years or older still remaining. That the teacher of the artist has an article gives zero notability to this work of art. The work is sourced, yes, to a website with a few million (literally) objects dumped into it, and from the owner of the work. That's not significant sourcing from independent sources. Fram (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a painting in the collection of Slavo-Byzantine Studies in Sofia, Bulgaria. That strongly suggests the painting is notable. That it is of 1915 and a pastel on paper suggests notability. That the artist is a student of the artist Jaroslav Věšín suggests notability. The owner could have self-serving motivations. That does not concern me. Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see no substantive claim to notability nor in-depth, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I can see no evidence supporting a claim to notability. Being a part of a curated collection might just count, but that needs to be thoroughly substantiated, which it has not been. Vanamonde (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The work of art is in a museum-level collection. That constitutes considerable indication of notability for Wikipedia purposes. Institutions by their nature bestow a certain level of importance on all artworks in their collection. I read above that "There is no in-depth research and coverage for this particular work". This is of secondary importance. That sort of commentary is usually present for works of art on which we have articles, it is true. But notability for individual works of art should not depend on that. Simply being part of a prominent collection should satisfy our requirements in this area. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please review the Wikipedia policies on notability. You need to demonstrate significant, in-depth coverage of this painting in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * —I'm not aware of notability guidelines for articles on works of art. Please quote excerpts from or link to guidelines for notability concerning works of art. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Notability. Citobun (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * —thank you for that, but as you can see from the page you linked to, we don't have notability guidelines specifically for works of art. We can try to discuss works of art in terms of general notability but we also have to be concerned with factors particular to works of art. My argument is that institutions that collect art lend their imprimatur to the objects in their collection. I would not argue that every object in every prestigious art collection warrants an article on Wikipedia. But there are factors that bolster the support for keeping this article. It is a pastel on paper from 1915. The artist is the first woman to graduate from the Art Academy in Bulgaria. The name of the artist's teacher is known, and we have an article to link to, on that teacher, whose name is Jaroslav Věšín. I cannot attest for the stature of the collection of Slavo-Byzantine Studies. But I am assuming that there is merit in the objects in their collection. Bus stop (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate all that, and I actually do not feel very strongly about deleting this article. But I voted delete on the basis that the article lacks references to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy. If this changes I will also change my vote to Keep. Citobun (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2016 (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.