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 no consensus. — Cirt (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Winter. Hoarfrost (painting) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 - the only hits for "russian winter hoarfrost timkov" are on wiki or mirrors and the references don't look as if they contain any comment. 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) 15:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lacks published scholarship. JNW (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 Nikolai Timkov painting «Russian Winter. Hoarfrost» 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 Timkov art and 20th century Russian art and Art history as a whole. 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) 21:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No need to reiterate all that was said here [1]. 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 user is highly knowledgeable in his field, and is a persistent spammer across multiple language Wikipedias. JNW (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Comment Here discusses the importance of the theme of article «Russian Winter. Hoarfrost», 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) 19:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The list of references used in the article would indicate that the painting is notable. Now, I don't have access to any of those sources, but am willing to accept them on good faith, unless someone else can voice valid and specific concerns regarding their authenticity/applicability.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 14:58 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see why this article should be deleted. Seven references are not enough? How many do we need to keep it? Since AFAIK it's not currently clearly defined, for me seven are enough. Moreover, if one makes search (in Russian) on an artist you can see quite a lot of exposure. In regards to: 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 - I always follow a rule of "an innocent until found guilty" and try to think in a good faith. Provide me tangible evidence that the author of the article has bad intentions and I'll be the first to change my vote. Until then my opinion is "keep". Oleg Y. (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 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) 07:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.