Talk:Lucien Dulfan

File:Shoes LD.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shoes LD.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Shoes LD.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The references issues

I am in the process of finding as much electronic references as possible, there are many links to articles in English and Russian. Some articles were printed in the pre-computer era in the USSR and therefore a bit of a struggle to find, please do not remove, they are truly materials that do exist. I will try to make copies of the article and place them here. I tried very hard to adhere to new templating and regulations of wiki, contact me with any concerns. Special Collections is very important section for this LIVING artist and we should be happy he is still alive. Since it's private and museum collections there is no electronic data on them. If you can help me find the data by all means, I would be very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alma kosa (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Alma kosa Copies of reference sources should not be uploaded to Wikipedia. If sources are not available online, it is sufficient to give the bibliographic information with which a reader could, with sufficient effort, find them. They do not have to be available free of charge (although it is nice when they are). However, sources should be published in some form. I am not clear on whether the contest of a "private museum collection" have been published in the sense that they have been made available to the public in some way.

Please provide titles and other bibliographic information as well as URLs for online sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear DES Maybe you can help with this article Lucien Dulfan I have written some information + links. Could the the banner warning at the top of the page be removed now? Thank you!--Art of Odessa (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Alma kosa There are currently four maintenance notices at the top of the article. They are:

• needs additional citations

• To remove this, I or another experienced editor would need to go through nthe articvle an verfifyu that all content is msuitably referenced to a reliable source that supports the content, and ask for more sources if any content is not supported

• Conflict of interest (COI):

• To remove this, I or another experienced editor would need to review the article in detail, and be sure that its contents are neutraland that any COI has not biased the tone or content.

• notability

• To remove this, I or another experienced editor would need to review the sources now citeds tyo see if there are several independnet published reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Dulfan. You could help by pointing out (here on the talk page) what you think are the best three or four sources for this purpose. Such sources should be not written by Dulfan or any associate or employer of his, and should be more than brief passing mentions -- several paragraphs on Dulfan at least in each nsource

• Promotional content.

• There is some of that in place currently, it will need to be removed. This is largely redundant with the neutrality review.

All of these can be done together, but it requires reviewing the entire article and every source cited, which could take some time. In the mean time, the list of three or four good sources for notability would help. If there are not at lest three such sources, polease try to find and add some. I hope that helps. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with this article. Dulfan has not been discussed in any reliable art publications, so there is no proof of notability. There are a lot of commercial links, and some that simply mention him as a participant in an exhibit, which is not enough. There is even a peacock claim of the Dulfanism movement!--Aristophile (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent source removals by Lute88

• In this edit Lute88 removed a reference link to ArtLondon.com, which has some of Dulfan's work for sale, with the edit summary: commercial link rm. However, WP:Affiliate (a section of WP:RS) says: Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available. I have reverted the change. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

" in order to verify such things as titles and running times." Not good enough.--Aristophile (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't meet WP:RS.--Aristophile (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• In this edit Lute88 removed a reference link and a statement from the article with the summary deadlink in citation, and not a notable fact in itself. However, individual statements in an article need not be notable, that is for whole articles. and WP:KDL (a section of WP:DEADLINK says nA dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. It could also return from the dead. ... Do not delete a URL just because it has been tagged with {{dead link}} for a long time. I am about to revert this edit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Museum names

Hello! I put back a couple of the collections in this article. The Zimmerli collection is properly sourced. I'm verifying the other sourced item. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I also corrected this edit; Please check the sources and perhaps do a search before making arbitrary changes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not obliged to copy bad translations.--Aristophile (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

this is really minor stuff! However the museum's own web site calls itself the "The Museum of Odessa Modern Art", as does this site, this site, this site and this site. At the same time, it seems to be a private museum, and seeing as how this article and the Vasiliy Ryabchenko article was associated with self-promotion, I wonder how serious of a museum it is.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

See https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+odessa+museum+of+modern+art%22&oq=%22the+odessa+museum+of+modern+art%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.14327j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 --Aristophile (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It is minor indeed, but should we perpetuate bad English on anglophone wiki, just because a museum couldn't get a professional translation? --Aristophile (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Odessa Review is a real scholarly source: http://odessareview.com/intrepid-dashing-90s-odessa-museum-modern-art/ --Aristophile (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lute88: yes, we should go by what they call themselves, obviously. For example the Museum of Contemporary Art Toronto Canada is what the Museum of Contemporary Art in Toronto calls themselves, even though it is a really dumb name. Inventing our own name for museums is original research. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)