Talk:Vladimir Kush

Works section
If the article survives the deletion discussion it will need a section to describe the artist's works as referenced at this and this articles. Diego (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the still incertain outcome of the AFD, I've added a section of selected paintings, all of which are referenced to and described in reliable sources. For now I've just listed the paintings with their references. The descriptions can be added if the article survives. I'd never heard of this artist until I started fixing up the article. Apparently, his Departure of the Winged Ship is quite a "cult classic" and has spawned some unusual "derivatives", e.g.  and . Voceditenore (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that the AfD has closed as keep, I've added a section on his style and influences and expanded the list of paintings with descriptions. To avoid drive-by unreferenced additions to the list as well as "personal commentaries", I've added the following note which appears inside the edit box:




 * In a single footnote at the beginning of the list, I've included links for all the images discussed in the list which go to their specific pages on Kush's official website. For copyright reasons, it's best not to link to other websites which reproduce the paintings. Voceditenore (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

bio section
can we discuss here what should and should not be in bio section? i think some stuff is allowed to come from a primary source not to prove notabliity but to show birthday education etc? Bouket (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Claims as to education are generally self-serving. JFHJr (㊟) 23:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * does anyone else agree? Bouket (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to include titles and/or courses that the artist claims to have and avenues where he has exposed his works, event if they come from primary sources, as well as self-descriptions that are not wp:peacock. Diego (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I've expanded the biography, referenced only to published secondary sources. They are often ultimately based on self-decriptions and official biographies, but at least they've been through one filter of editorial control before they get to us. In any case, simply having attended a large art school in Moscow, is hardly "self-serving". Self-serving would be a claim to having won a major prize there or name-dropping about his teachers. Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In general, we should be able to discuss anything on a talk page. The remedy for any incorrect information is correct information. Sources should be cited so editors can look at them and decide on reliability. Deleting references on a talk page is not acceptable to me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did I miss something? Did someone delete sources on this page?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same thing. I checked the history and can't see any cases of sources being deleted. Voceditenore (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate, unencyclopedic content removed
I have removed the following inappropriate, unreferenced, personal commentary that was recently added to the article. For guidance as to why it was removed please read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Voceditenore (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: On top of that, the material was copied and pasted from this forum, which is probably copied from yet another source. It is a copyright infringement and must not be restored under any circumstances. Voceditenore (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)