Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Kush

Vladimir Kush

Vladimir Kush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This subject meets neither WP:BASIC notability requirements, nor any of the alternative qualities under WP:ARTIST. I searched and initially found book hits encouraging, but discovered mostly trivial mention, advertizing, and illustration credits. None of the existing sources are WP:RS that could establish notability: one's selling the subject's work, another is the subject himself, and a third is a blog. JFHJr (㊟) 23:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I have added a reference to an article in a Russian encyclopedia. Seems reasonably reliable to me Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, that encyclopedia uses Wikipedia as a source. Whatever Russian source may have been on ru.wiki was deleted for failing notability. Obviously, that decision is not binding here. Even considering the cite, how does this make multiple, reliable third party sources? JFHJr (㊟) 07:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on that deletion discussion are very poor. Just a quick google search and I found helpful information; you just need to search more deeper, and of course only on Russian sites.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 19:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)}

• Delete The majority of the resources I found relate to marketing materials. Adverts, promotional content, press releases. SarahStierch (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Seems non-notable; self-promotion...Modernist (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• keep i just added lots of references to magazines and books that discuss his works. there are lots more you just have to click on the link at the top of this to find them. seems famous. Bouket (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is not a rationale to vote !keep. You added the following: "vladimir+kush" 1 a single, trivial/passing mention in Bringing Grammar to Life; 2 being in the paper for getting robbed is not a claim to notability; "vladimir+kush" 3 a single mention in a 284 page publication; "vladimir+kush" 4 a full page magazine advertisement, not by the publisher itself, but by a gallery displaying his work. Advertising and PR are not reliable sources. Which of these gives in-depth coverage of the subject to satisfy WP:BASIC notability requirements? JFHJr (㊟) 21:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• it says in your link "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" i think the sources on the article do that now. you are free to disagree but i dont think it needs to be discussed. Bouket (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• also can you please stop removing material from the page right after i add it. can you let someone else without interest in deleting this page go over it instead. Bouket (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPSPS for reasons that self-publications should not entail self-serving claims as to notability, education, and third parties to name a few. JFHJr (㊟) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

the link you give says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". the book and probably the web site are written or published by the subject and they agree with each other Bouket (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And the very next section: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. JFHJr (㊟) 22:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

then you should only remove the parts of that section that the bold sections you listed refer to. Bouket (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

however since it is in contention you probably should leave it. an experienced wiki editor said this and i think it applies here [1] " I refer you to WP:BRD, which is not policy, but is a widely accepted essay. You made a Bold edit by removing the "In popular culture" section, I disagreed with that edit, and I Reverted it. The next step in the process is Discussion, and it was well that you initiated it here. However, you don't get to continue reverting to your preferred version during the discussion, which you have done. I have returned the article to the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing, until consensus or compromise can be reached" Bouket (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed your restoration. Material that is not properly sourced cannot be kept in an article, even during an AfD discussion. If editors want to look at the material, they can do so through the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

problem is that much of what you removed is sourced properly. Bouket (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's clearly not sourced properly. From a technical viewpoint you should never just add bare urls, you need to do a full cite which for books includes author, title, publisher, publishing date, ISBN and page number. The publisher of one of your sources (and I shouldn't have had to follow an url to find this out) was Books on Demand, self-published so not a reliable source (have you read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY let alone WP:BLP? The date on the link which is supposed to show current ownership of shops was 2003. I also couldn't see anything on the snippet to back the claim. Then there's the one line mention in a tourist magazine trying to draw tourists to a shopping area, again not a reliable source, do you really expect it have anything but praise? A trivial mention in a guidebook doesn't belong in the article either. I couldn't even be bothered with the useless link to an 'encyclopedia' - didn't the ads give it away? If you really want to use that encyclopedia you'd have to show it was a reliable source by our criteria and not, for instance, one of the many online wiki type encyclopedias that we never use. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about the mention in a book which is a reliable source but the fact that she says a student teacher used Kush's work doesn't belong in a bio, it's far too trivial - that paragraph was not about Kush but about how the teacher was teaching. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work, Doug. Let's keep in mind, Bouket doesn't think the issue needs to be discussed; trivial mentions and deceptive prose make this subject notable (laugh). I hope the closing admin will fully discount Bouket's !keep vote. JFHJr (㊟) 16:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wait I hope you searched in Russian. A quick google search turns 346.000 results. I found interesting articles, some of which might meet RS: [2], [3], [4]♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 19:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)}

I did check in Russian. I didn't find much coverage that struck me as RS, let alone substantial coverage by RS. I also had a look at the three publications linked to above. The first, lookatme.ru, is probably not RS, most likely a blog/SPS, as it posts user contributions as long as they're registered (see section 5) and appears to exercise little editorial oversight; here's the author's profile. The second, on runyweb.com, is an interview. What the subject has to say about himself is probably not entirely reliable in an RS/WP:BLPSPS way. It contains self-serving claims as well as claims involving third parties, including the CIA. I couldn't find any information on the editorial practices of the third source, peoples.ru; normally there's information more readily available. I'll note that it says he has Sudanese citizenship, and that he was born in Moscow AND Sudan, though the prose generally closely mirrors statements made by the subject about himself. Though it's less clear cut than the previous two, I'm inclined to say it's probably not reliable. If you read Russian, please take a look and let me know if you disagree. JFHJr (㊟) 23:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised about this error... --♫GoP♫_T^CN 16:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I knew there was more information, but as I said you need to look more deeper. Keep as per Voceditenore's great research.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 10:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)}

• Delete No claim of notability made in the article and nothing in the sources so fails our inclusion criteria. Mtking ^(edits) 12:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per a lengthy article about him in the Santa Fe New Mexican here. (I also have the complete article via a subscription only archive); this lengthy review in OC Weekly; this article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette; this article in World and I (more about the publication here); this article in the Sedona Red Rock News; and while Lexikon der phantastischen Künstlerinnen und Künstler is published via Books on Demand, it's for the Internationale Archiv phantastischer Künstler in Vienna. Its author, Gerhard Habarta has been published (by others) fairly often in this area. Voceditenore (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Updated Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 10:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)}

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

---