Talk:Dalibor Perković

Discussion during articles for creation submission process
While it looks like there are good sources here there is a catch. The first two are written by the subject, therefor primary sources, one mentions his name on some sort of schedule, one is the briefest of bios and one is a blog. None of them give the article the Verifiability it needs I'm afraid. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the first two are stories written by the subject but edited, introduced and published by the third parties. The first one is an e-zine, and the second the e-version of a fanzine. The "schedule" is a list of all SFERA award winners. I have just added some more sources, but I have a question: are the non-English sources considered verifiable at all? Because if they are not, I can stop trying and you can delete it right away. 193.198.86.179 (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, non-English sources are definitely allowed. See Verifiability. It just makes it a little harder for us to review what they are, but I have found that is pretty helpful in that event.  Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  19:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked over article, and I think the hold still stands, but for notability reasons more than verifiability reasons, even though verifiability is still an issue. The article needs more reliable sources, and if you look at the criteria for notability of creative professionals, it also needs proof that he's particularly notable as an author, i.e. professional reviews of his work, or discussion about him in news sources, etc. If you can find more sources of that nature, it'll satisfy both the reliable sources need and the proof of notability. Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  19:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is what exactly "particularly notable" means. Dalibor received the national SF award three times which is verified by most links given here. Link no. 4 is a professional review published in Zarez, a professional literature and arts magazine. If this isn't enough, all I can do is shrug and say that most of the Croatian SF authors already put into Wikipedia don't meet the criteria either, and probably never will (which is, basically, the consequence of the local situation, but that's a matter for a different discussion). Ok, I realise that the amount of work on Wikipedia is enormous and that many texts really should be deleted and you can't catch them all, but, in the end, isn't that being inconsistent? 193.198.81.170 (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh I absolutely agree that there's a lot in Wikipedia, and not just in the Croation SF authors category, that doesn't fall into our guidelines. But that's the flip-side of being an encyclopedia everyone can edit; we can't possibly catch all the problem articles. However, as far as this article goes, given that one of the references is a professional review, I agree that does meet one of the standards for notability. Apologies for not noticing it earlier. One last request for a last bit of cleanup. 1) Along with each source, would you add a definition or title in English? Also a sentence or two that mentions the review by Zarez in the text of the article, would help anyone who comes across the article and can't tell that there's a review listed. Once that's been done, I'll move it into article-space, as I think the verifiability and notability are satisfied. Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  05:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you meant to mention the Zarez review in the article itself or in the links section, but the previous doesn't seem right, so I did the latter. I signed everything in non-English, hope it's fine. Thank you and I appologise for not being more helpful from the start. Since you don't understand Croatian, I should have probably given those explanations earlier. However, this Zarez thing bothers me a bit: this is the only review about this particular author that appeared in any kind of serious publication at all because most publications in Croatia - especially the more official ones - tend to completely ignore SF. What about those who didn't get lucky enough to get such a review, but are definitely notable (or noted) by readers, only not officially reckognised? 161.53.179.232 (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (unindent, reply to ip editor) For the Zarez thing, either one would be acceptable, and what you've done is just fine. I'll move the article over shortly. As for your second question, the criteria for notability of creative professionals that I linked above is really contingent on notice byb critics or other people considered reliable sources. So just the fact that it's popular among readers isn't enough, unless that popularity was noticed by a reliable news source for example. Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dalibor Perković. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131093846/http://www.art-anima.com:80/d/pisci/perkovic.html to http://www.art-anima.com/d/pisci/perkovic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dalibor Perković. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090605194952/http://www.zarez.hr/159/kritika5.htm to http://www.zarez.hr/159/kritika5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)