Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jusuf Barčić


 * 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 keep. Among the arguments grounded in policy, there was consensus that the sourcing was sufficient to show the subject's notability. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  17:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Jusuf Barčić

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Irrelevant BIO as one can be. ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  07:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ౪ Santa ౪  99°  07:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, considering the souces, it isn't irrelevant. Governor Sheng (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering article actual content, it's absolutely irrelevant. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  07:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be some mainstream news coverage. Can we check if this person gets significant coverage in any secondary sources, something analyzing their activities beyond the circumstances of death? The article seems to be burying the lede, talking about early and late life, but almost nothing about the middle, which is supposed to be the main claim to notability. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of this person in my life, so I tried to find something on him beyond reports of his traffic accident. Nothing. It seems that accident is the only reason in the first place why he found the way into media. It's sort of, this locally know reckless driver finally meat his maker, and here who he was. Standard eulogy for anons. Or maybe I am wrong.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He is mentioned by secondary sources too. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22jusuf+barcic%22&btnG=. He is known for being a religous leader of many wahabbis in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Anyone familiar with the movement heard about him, as he was among the early ones, a pioneer so to say. Governor Sheng (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I checked six or seven (top to bottom - of course I skipped known "experts", lunatics like Tanasković, Nogradi, etc.) and found that he is still mentioned in passing, without information, whatsoever, on what that guy wanted, why is he significant if at all. So, he was an adherent of Salafism, and allegedly leader of a group, so what? What group, how big, what the group wanted is, of course, completely lacking in all papers that I checked. Why should anonymous adherent of Salafi Islamic sect be more relevant for English Wikipedia from, say, any ultra-conservative and radical sect in Christianity, just because he is mentioned in passing in some papers. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  12:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bottom line for his relevancy, something which could reasonably make him relevant for English Wikipedia: is this person proven recruiter of Muslims for any of the wars in the Middle East, or responsible for or significantly connected (not guilty by superficial association) to some violent terrorist act anywhere? If not, he is completely irrelevant for our project. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  15:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You reffering to someone as lunatic is enough for me. You're arguments aren't serious. Governor Sheng (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, lunatic fringe is: the members of a political or social group or movement who have the most extreme or foolish ideas  ౪ Santa ౪  99°  22:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody can be really sure they're not part of the group themselves. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You can check them yourself, and tell what you have found out. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  11:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the arguments brought by the nominator aren't serious enough. --Governor Sheng (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Irrelevant person. If he can get article, than you can make thousand more for various youtube guru's. --Mhare (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He wasn't a YT guru, but a person regarded as the founder of the Salafist movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a guy you can find a lot about from bunch of scholarly works spaning from 1988 to present. YT gurus don't have such notoriety. Governor Sheng (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no "movement" in B-H, nor anywhere else, nothing to create - you are either adherent/follower or not - Salafism is very concretely defined and you can inform yourself in our article about it, or about Salafism in B-H through one of sources in this one, Czech researcher Zora Hesová. There is nothing inherently noteworthy or sinister in it, unless individual decide to get violent criminal or terrorist in order to impose his worldview on others. He could have been preacher, or more precisely, as Mhare, said YouTube Salafi guru. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  10:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why it should be sinister? Its a noteworthy religious movement. Also, YT gurus have their articles - PewdiePie comes to mind. Also, Barčić died long before YT was a thing, but whatever. Governor Sheng (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Content in this article has everything to do with cleanup and improvement., could you please tell me how does the subject fail GNG or any relevant subjective criteria. Thanks, ─ The Aafī   (talk)  09:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We have nothing on this person regarding his career and activities which would made him relevant for the project - unless someone believes that being adherent of Islam and follower of Salafi sect is inherently significant for the English Wikipedia. By thorough cleanup of this article buried in lede, we would be left with an obituary to anonymous. ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  10:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is just your bias, the article has all what it needs. Governor Sheng (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are probably thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Salafi communities around the world, with each, or at least most, having a more or less charismatic preacher as a leader, are grouped in smaller or larger communities, more or less isolated from wider society, etc. Are they all due for their own standalone article, or we need to establish some significance in their existence, beyond the superficial passing mention in barely few secondary sources.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  12:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are enough sources. He didn't establish just any "Salafi" community, the secondary sources are good evidence for that. Governor Sheng (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Daft AfD for subject with clear notability case for their role in Islamism in the Balkans - has dozens of scholarly mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when is Salafi religious fundamentalism equal Islamism? Who labels him as Islamist? Further, as I see the WP:Notability and WP:GNG we still need "Significant coverage", not passing mention - by the way, sources are good and independent, but they do not delve into Barcic persona and career as they should if we are to establish notability for standalone, mentions are anecdotal and superficial. I still wonder how many of people like this person could get their standalone article then, simply for being leaders of a village of 100 uneducated Salafi adherents, and/or caused a stir and commotion around a mosque that kicked them out. I mean, we have an article on fundamentalists like Kevin Swanson, but with him hangs half of United States conservative establishment, and he fills columns from Washington state to Finland, our guy here hangs with no one and fills only couple of those (online) tabloids in generally not so friendly countries to Bosnian Muslims, Serbia and Croatia. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  01:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Islamist because he sought to impose his religious preferences, reject secular institutions and install rule by sharia law - that's pretty much the working definition of Islamism. The subject is mentioned in numerous reliable, secondary scholarly works. That is amply notable by Wikipedia standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not find any one of these sources labels him Islamist, while your definition of Islamism is more than just reductive, and in case of this person simply not used by scholarship cited in article. As far as I was able to read through the papers, nobody gave any description in relation to him which fits our Islamism article definition. Every mosque and every Muslim community on the planet function upon Sharia jurisprudence, there is nothing mythical nor sinister about it. He rejected secularism and went to live life of Salafi preacher based on Sharia in the forest with 50-60 of his followers. All we have in these papers about that is anecdotal passing mention, without in-depth description about his agency and its extent - he had no political organization to voice his worldview, no access to mosques, and I bet he didn't live long enough to start exploiting YouTube. If every fringe guru from every god forsaken mountain with a YouTube account deserves an article, we would bury our project with them. Indonesia has 230 million Muslims and innumerable Salafi adherents, one major sectarian war and at least one major Islamist militia, and we have one article on a person, a leader of who knows how many Salafis under arms - in contrast we have three articles on village gurus roaming rural Bosnia, who in the last 30 yrs. were able to bring under their sway few hundreds of uneducated youths mostly with a criminal record. What's the point, am I missing something? ౪ Santa ౪  99°  11:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Barčić isn't so isignificant as you think. The sources mention him as a person who fundamentaly shaped the Salafist community in BiH. The Salafist community in Bosnia and Herzegovina is itself a noteworthy phenomenon that needs to be explained on Wikipedia as well. Not only that, but as a sort of a pionir of the movement in BiH, he is mentioned by the sources, as a person who shaped also his "successors" Nusret Imamović and Bilal Bosnić, both of whom have their own respective articles here as well, and themselves are noteworthy. The mentions of him in the sources in questions aren't ancedotal, but well researched, as he is mentioned by notable researches from notable institutions, in a span from 1980s till the present day. That is not anectodal, and especially if the same facts were reported by many other scholarly sources. Governor Sheng (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Now, you're a consipracy theorist. And it's you who is actually biased here, claiming that only because some of the sources are based in Croatia or Serbia, that they're anti-Bosnian Muslim. That's why your objections aren't serious. Governor Sheng (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose In addition to an array of sources covering "Jusuf Barcic", there are just as many under the alternative name "Yusuf Barčić". Jusuf was a significant leader in the Salafist/Wahhabi movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina so I do not understand why he would be considered an insignificant figure. ElderZamzam (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How is he significant, what was he saying, writing (if at all), preaching, who influenced him and how, whom he influenced and how. Is he significant solely for being leader of Bosnian rag-tag group or was he a more than just that and how. Was he Modernist Salafi, Enlightened Salafi, was he purists, activists, jihadists. Article is grown paragraph or two since nomination, mostly through info repetition. This project lacks articles on leaders and authors the likes of Muhammad Musa Al-Sharif, but we have several Bosnian hicks, criminals and attention seekers, based on passing mention in several essays and papers on Bosnian group of couple of hundreds, not on any individual person. (It's like writing an article on local plum-brandy maker while lacking article on Pasteur. GNG says "significant" not any passing mention.) ౪ Santa ౪  99°  19:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This all reads like opinion. Significance is determined by a presence in multiple reliable, secondary sources. That's it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think the project is missing articles like "Muhammad Musa Al-Sharif", stop wasting time here and go create them. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you are misinterpreting our core policy, which you can read as senior editor: GNG does not says that significance is established through sheer number of passing mention, it is actually state that significant mention is required if we want to establish notability. I find it disconcerting when senior editors try to misinterpret project's core policy. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  20:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Dozens of scholarly mentions is not "a trivial mention" and your refusal to recognise this is becoming disruptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Number of mentions is trivial, if substance in those mentions is trivial. By the way, now you are obviously misquoting me as well - I said "passing mention" in sources, no matter how many one find is not enough to establish notability, GNG requires significant mention, and then writers of that core policy give us example what they had in mind - you are senior editor of 8 yrs of experience and 19 thousands of edits, so you better go on and read it yourself. Otherwise, you put yourself into situation where your persistence on notability of person like this makes no sense. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  08:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bla bla bla. This single source alone is a significant mention. So is this. So is this. As you have made plain, your reason for this nomination is a prejudice against encyclopedic articles on "Bosnian hicks, criminals and attention seekers". Not your call to make. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is still scope under ARBEE so please tone down your discussion. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  08:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - Bla, bla, bla is not response I would expect from editor of your experience. Since we have trouble interpreting policies on establishing notability, I will quote here most basic parts:


 * 1) WP:GNG - "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
 * - The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
 * - Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.


 * 1) Notability of people specific guideline WP:NBASIC - People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
 * If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
 * People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below.
 * Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  08:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yep. The key part your are failing to read over and over again is: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." This subject has more than "a trivial mention" in multiple scholarly sources, ergo job done, ergo stop wasting community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So? And how am I failing if I quoted it? ౪ Santa ౪  99°  09:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV from all appearances. The article is cited to several off-line books which appear to have significant coverage of the subject. The nominator has provided no source analysis, and we reasonably have no reason to believe that these sources aren't significant per WP:AGF, Offline sources, and WP:Verifiability. In short, I am not seeing anything but a personally biased rationale for deletion, rather than a policy based rationale for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2022 (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.