Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvia Dimitrova (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Silvia Dimitrova
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article has no inline citations and I can't find any to add. I am not finding any online sources. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. seems more like WP:PROMO. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Have added a couple of sources, many more are available, has had icons on display in major cathedrals etc, clearly notable as an exponent of this specialised field. Pam  D  09:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I found the Fulcrum Anglican not such a great source as it claims it was "republished, with permission, from The Times, 28 March 2009". The original article is Vexations (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I rearranged the citations provided by, including the questionable Twiston-Davies article. I removed some text that I couldn't reference. Pinging to have another look at the article. I still don't know if this artist is notable. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what was "questionable" about the reprint of the Times article, unless you don't AGF and suspect that the republished version was a fake... but I've now checked the Times original via Wikipedia Library and have added that ref, with its different title, though the freely-available online copy is a bonus for the reader who hasn't got access to the Times behind its paywall. Pam  D  23:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per PamD and per the near-snow Keep result in 2006. Nomination concerns now seem fixed. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The concerns in the deletion rationale appear to have been resolved. NemesisAT (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2022 (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.