Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jelena Adžić


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. While I see much argument on which guideline applies, there is little argument showing that this person passes either. The delete arguments are much stronger in this case. Kevin (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jelena Adžić

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. Does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER nor WP:BIO either as I see no awards/nominations/large fan base. ƒ(Δ)² 17:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. After some reflection, I believe that TV journalists who have appeared prominently on several different programs are notable under criterion 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER, since they are "television personalities" (and perhaps "opinion makers") who have "had significant roles in multiple notable ... television shows." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin, and other participants in the AfD Per discussion here, consensus is that WP:CREATIVE applies here, and not WP:ENTERTAINER as cited above. ƒ(Δ)² 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Holding a brief discussion on a noticeboard, without having the courtesy to inform anyone who has expressed opinions contrary to yours, does not achieve "consensus' to ignore the text of a guideline. This is the sort of content dispute that ought to be worked out through reasoned discussion in context (that's what the AFD process is for, although it's often hard to tell); and trying to short-circuit it through low profile discussions elsewhere isn't a great display of good faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't intended to be low-profile. You're welcome to comment there if you wish. ƒ(Δ)² 16:52, 6 October 200 (UTC)
 * Your intentions aren't the point. It's completely inappropriate to try and skew the outcome of an AFD discussion by staging a brief discussion elsewhere and declaring yourself the winner, rather than promoting full-length, in-context discussion at the AFD. A key part of your argument -- that one and only one notability guideline can govern a class of potentially notable people -- has clearly been rejected in practice by a broad consensus of Wikipedia editors (eg, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR often both apply to individuals). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This wasn't the forum to discuss (possible) changes and interpretation of policy. Only when policy is clarified can you apply it to an AfD. I've already replied to your last point at the discussion. Keep the discussion there. ƒ(Δ)² 17:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An AFD based on notability issues is exactly the place to discuss the application and interpretation of notability guidelines. It's done all the time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that's no excuse. Since I have multiple AfDs with the same rationale, and the same interpretation of policy, the policy page is the appropriate place to discuss this. ƒ(Δ)² 17:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's neither policy nor practice, it's just timewasting and wikilawyering. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Why do we have all these CTV anchor pages? Do we really need a page for every single CTV anchor? Refer to the WP:NOT section on indiscriminate information. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, As a television personality on multiple shows on a national network she seems to barely satisfy the first criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER which I see no reason should not apply. I would be more comfortable if the article could expand on what shows she is on even though the article is presently just a stub. --CooperDB (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Comment, not a !vote. Sometimes things are right in front of your face, but you don't see them soon enough. Category:Television journalists is a subcategory of Category:Television personalities, as shown on this page, so that WP:ENTERTAINER expressly applies, so that the claimed failure to meet WP:CREATIVE doesn't control the outcome, and the article should be kept Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. ENT seems to apply here because of the shows she appears on. However, it's a weak claim. Doing reviews on various shows doesn't seem significant to me. And the article lacks any rs, which doesn't help. Lara  14:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The place where we decide on the application of guidelines to individual articles is right here. This is a class of occupation for which we have had great difficulty in sorting out the articles to keep, because of the difficulty of finding sources and the question of what constitutes substantial coverage, as well as what criteria ought to apply to notability. I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that when they are nominated we have no choice but to discuss it, but I also agree with Aditya that perhaps it is time we had a more centralized discussion on a proposal. Why don't the two of you try to prepare one?    DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Already tried. Astronominov  14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:ENTERTAINER #1 Gruntler (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.