Talk:Alexei Kyrilloff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EDITED (do not modify back): This article does not deserve to be deleted.

It is a contribution to wikipedia and the reasons exposed for its deletion are invalid.

1. People with Kyrilloff's works in their collections have requested that an encyclopedia page was created.

2. Wikipedia beeing a free and open encyclopedia, its main goal being to pass knowledge from one human to another, to list cultural, historical and scientific information; Alexei Kyrilloff's works having been distinguished by specialists and the press (see references 1,2 and 3) - and this page being free of any promotional content, it is very difficult to understand the request that was made for the deletion of this page.

Please be more specific before taking such steps that, de facto, are bad for Wikipedia's content. (edit)--130.79.198.146 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What's with the binary logic? It looks like you think you're writing a legal essay. Obviously a law student in a French country... I hate to break it to you, but the real world is multifarious. --Johnnyguy (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To Johnnyguy: There is no binary logic. There is a 1. and a 2., should I invent a 3? I hate to break it to you, but there must be something more useful for you to do than trying to find French law students across the internet. -- Kyrilloff Jr. 89.80.99.90 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The previous version of the article was deleted because it was empty. That is an absolutely valid reason to delete an article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The present article is far from beeing "empty". Consequently there is absolutely no "valid" reason to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyrilloff (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell changes are not affected on this page? Please stop re establishing the previous page after changes have been made. Thank you. Please do not re modify the following argument:

This article does not deserve to be deleted.

Please stop modifying. Thank you --89.80.99.90 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Which changes are you referring to that should have been made? If you're referring to the changes you made to other users' comments on this talk page, they were reverted per normal talk page policy.

If there's an issue with the article, please be more specific about it here - but add a new comment; don't change comments left by others. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defects in current version of the article

IMHO, these are the issues with the current version of the article.

1. There are no no independent references cited. Articles must draw on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (I.e., the subject's press releases, personal website, publisher's website, family members, etc. are not independent sources.)

Edited: Argument is invalid, there are extremely reliable sources (see in text references 1,2, 3) --130.79.199.20 (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

1. The current version is written by an editor with an apparent conflict of interest. The copy should be gone over to make sure it is neutral. However, I do not see any egregious errors.

IMHO, the current version is not blatant advertising, and there are enough assertions of notability (biographies) that the article should not be subject to speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC

Edited: As I was writing this, the original editor added the artist's website, a primary source. There are still no independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The author based himself on the articles and on official biographic content. Additionally references have been added including a report from the Pushkin Art museum in Moscow, Russia --130.79.199.20 (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with C.Fred. I own 3 Kyrilloff paintings and I perfectly know his path and work. I could have wrote the article myself - Carl --Nullumest (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed defects

New references have been added, three press article from special art news papers online. All these newspapers are recognised and provide full verification of the article's content. The article seems neutral

The article is now correct.--130.79.199.20 (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)