Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvia Dimitrova

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 14:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silvia Dimitrova

vanity article for nn painter. 360 google hits, not all for the artist. Quotes and endorsements are all from art dealers trying to sell paintings. Fails WP:BIO pschemp | talk 04:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It is my impression that contemporary painters and other visual artists, excluding the most famous and most media-savvy individuals, are underrepresented on Google; this may well be true for a Bulgarian icon painter, even one living in England. Wikipedia also doesn't have any notability recommendations suitable for this typ of case. If she has had public commissions for somewhat significant clients and locations, such as for St Paul's Cathedral (as mentioned in the article), that is a claim to notability, but I would like more details on the nature of these works. I'm still undecided about this. u p p l a n d 06:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'm gonna go keep in this case. Google has a decided and well documented systematic bias in many cases. That's why it's not the end-all of deciding notability. (Don't get me wrong, it's plenty helpful in many cases...). Assuming the St Paul's Cathedral claim is verifiable this is borderline pass of WP:BIO. ---J.Smith 19:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• I totally disagree. I wrote this article and as far as I’m aware, Silvia Dimitrova has no idea about the existence of this article. The most prestigious Cathedrals in England ordered her icon paintings and every single “premiere” of her icon was a big event. She is truly one of the best icon painters and I do not see a point and logic in deleting this article. I do apologise that there are only 360 so-called “google hits”, but it is not my fault that people are not interested in this type of art. More over there are less important articles on Wikipedia which should be deleted immediately, but they are still up and running. This article will be developed, however I need more time and materials, because it is difficult to gather information on such a “individual” artist, who is not a public person, but her works are well known in specific environments. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE!! P.S. "She was also nominated and shortlisted for the European Women of Achievement Awards 2000 for contributions to the Arts"; it means something- doesn't it?! ---Mzalewski 21:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She seems notable enough for mine if the claims in the article are correct. However, under our verifiability policies, we would need information from reliable third party sources such as reviews of her works, mention in books about modern day iconography or artists etc to permanently establish her notability. Capitalistroadster 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• There is a lot about her way of icon-painting in Alan Ogden's "Revelations of Byzantium", Appendix. April 2001 (ISBN973-9432-32-8) (he analyses the iconic art using her paintings as an example). You can also have look at: http://www.london.anglican.org/page3505. There are many articles about Dimitrova in big newspapers, but I do not have links... She was mentioned in many brochures about icons but, once again, I don't have a link, etc., to prove it's true. ---Mzalewski 21:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If there are mentions of her in the book, it should be cited as a reference in the article. I will have a look at the Anglican org article and add it as a reference. Capitalistroadster 23:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - this one turns on sourcing for me. "Ghits" (Google hits) are not the only way to be notable, IMHO. If she has significant sales, presence in the art community, critical notice, mention in art journals or texts, those all contribute notability too. How much is needed may not be completely clear, but getting verified info of that sort into the article would be good... if it's not already at this point there. The comments at the bottom (from reviewers? Critics? they are untagged) are good but they need sourcing (and some demonstration that the commenters have some weight). No (non)vote for now because I could see this either way. ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • On further reflection and examination of what is presented, Keep. I still have concerns about the quotes praising her work and claiming significance having no attribution though. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Even if some of the assertions in the article may need additional verification, the notability of the subject appears to be clearly established. Monicasdude 14:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ghits isn't a good indicator of the notability of a spesialist craftsperson. Needs sources though. --Eivind^t@c 17:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems plenty notable. PrettyMuchBryce 20:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if more sources are added. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:59
• Keep notable. --MaNeMeBasat 10:16, 23 April 2006 (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.