Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresimir Chris Kunej


 * 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. The author's discourses are much too long to usefully consider in their entirety, and Judo112's keep comment is weakly argued, whereas Drmies's review of the sources, in fine, is persuasive.  Sandstein  04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Kresimir Chris Kunej

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't see how this subject is notable. He is a translator and one of his papers is required reading--that's not enough. A claim is made about his having received Croatian media attention, but the article (and the references) provide no evidence of such coverage, except for the brief TV segments. If a caption of the closing credits is necessary to provide evidence of media attention, then we are really clutching at straws here. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The primary author has done much to wikify and improve the article. However, those efforts have done nothing to demonstrate the notability of the subject. There is no evidence whatsoever of any significant coverage of this translator or his work (as opposed to the notability of the works he has translated). Bongo  matic  23:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * hold on. I am the author of this article. Please allow me to respond tomorrow, I simply do not have time to do so today. Would voters please wait for my comment tomorrow? Please do not quickly delete article yet.Turqoise127 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions run for 7 days. Nobody needs to hold on for you to have the opportunity to comment. Most people who participate in deletion discussions continue to watch the AfD page and the underlying page, so can modify their opinions on the introduction of new information. Bongo  matic  01:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bongo is right; nothing is going to happen overnight. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry, did not know. I thought someone could delete right away. I am relatively new here.Turqoise127 (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep please. Obviously as the article creator.
 * Respected editors, please read the article in question thoroughly and follow the sources links, they tell a story. Do consider the following and forgive the lengthiness in advance;
 * Note on possible bad faith nomination:
 * From very early on in this article creation, editor Bongomatic has had a problem with it tagging it. I jumped through his hoops and continually worked hard on article, improving cite style and adding sources. After I felt article was good enough, I messaged Bongomatic to please review again and/or comment which he did not do for over a month. I sought advice of another experienced editor (which is maybe what editor Bongomatic resents), who removed the notability tag (must have felt article was sufficient). Bongomatic re-tagged notability, and after I wrote him why he persistently dislikes the article and asked if it was some prejudice against it or me the article appeared on AfD (done inconspicuously, nominated by a third person who seems like did not look at article very well, but Bongomatic “delete” vote is smack dab underneath).
 * Now, I have stated many times and I reiterate, I respect Bongomatic’s work a lot and it is obvious his contributions are relevant, but I feel he is quite influential here and has numerous allies, so I hope this vote can be fair- because I do not have allies here nor am I influential. I understand it is not the number of votes that decides, but arguments.
 * Mr. Bongomatic, please do not make this a grudge or personal, I implore you to be open minded.
 * Now, I am relatively new to Wiki and wish to contribute more. It is difficult these days to write an article; everything seems to be done and written about. This was my first article and I thought it great because I know the person who is the subject as a colleague in profession, and a rare possibility for me to contribute.
 * The notability here (in addition to person’s achievements) that does not jump out obviously is the fact that translator criteria are not very regulated anywhere in the world and are of great importance. Legal documents that need to be translated from one language into another (like for example for war tribunal cases, countries joining the European Union, and even secret service translations to protect the US) need to be done accurately, and if there are no criteria for the profession of translating then accuracy is questionable. Imagine you write something and it is butchered in translation in the Czech Republic, for example. Your ideas were not relayed, but it was translated word for word by a Czech person who babysat children in the UK for a year and is now doing professional translations. This is what is occurring in Croatia.
 * The person who is the subject of the article was the first who I am aware of that raised these questions on a national level (in the Republic of Croatia) and was an activist on the issue. This issue will certainly be heard of more in academic circles.
 * Before going into the technical aspects of my keep vote, let me also state that keeping articles like this will help balance our systematic bias towards recentism and the US & UK, and that I read an interesting statement from a respected editor on here stating that, “We seem to have two rules now at WP. One, except for BLP, 2RS=N, regardless of how non-notable the event of person or event may have been in any normal meaning of the term. The other, applying to BLP only, is that it has to be more than one event, unless the event is particularly important.For everyone who quotes BLP, do you realize you are saying that when he eventually dies of other causes he will become notable?”.
 * In addition:
 * I believe WP:BIO, WP:GNG is satisfied and verifiable.
 * “Basic criteria: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.”
 * There is significant coverage of a national TV station news show, two shows as sources. There is only 5 TV stations in Croatia, these listed are the main national ones. I cannot understand how the nominator can state there is no evidence of such coverage when it is sourced in accordance to Wiki sourcing, right down to the minutes the segments appear in! I attempted to upload 5 screenshots, only two were left undeleted due to copyright issues. One screenshot shows Mr. Kunej and the caption lists him as tic publishing, media coverage and activism has undeniably made a significant impact in the discipline of translating/interpreting. If all the media coverage of this in Croatia is not deemed enough, the fact one of his academic papers was used as required reading at also a major university in Germany indicates this.
 * WP:PROF 1 The academic work may not be highly cited (see quote below), you must remember this is an Eastern European state and translation is not a popular profession.
 * Citation indexes: the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. They are, unfortunately, very expensive: Scopus will be found mostly in university and large college libraries, and Web of Knowledge in major universities. Scopus covers the sciences and the social sciences……. but only the largest universities can afford the entire set…….These databases are furthermore incomplete especially for the less developed countries.
 * Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline.
 * The introduction of translation regulations in Croatia by the national agency for norms (as flimsy as they may be) qualifies as solved a major problem in academic discipline.
 * For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries.
 * This person is a scholar in humanities, and his works are held in various academic libraries, this is sourced.
 * “WP:PROF 2. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association…….”
 * This one I concur is perhaps partially satisfied, but do take a look at the article’s section “membership in organizations”. Some are national level appointments, not professional associations.
 * “WP:PROF 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.”
 * Following the person’s activism, national department for norms and measurements in Croatia introduced certain regulations for translation standards, and the university of Zagreb introduced a “translator” study major. This is great effect in Croatia (not the world, but #4 does not mention world). This statement is verifiable, sources listed lead to this easily (website of department of norms, technical committee members, dates, and dates of new standards and new major).
 * Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.
 * One textbook he translated is being used continuously at the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering for courses. An academic paper of his was used as required reading at the University of Tubingen in Germany. These are sourced.
 * WP:PROF 7. "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.”
 * Most translation agencies and language schools in Croatia now claim regulated status, quote Mr. Kunej’s work, and indicate awareness of the situation. Existance of the Chamber of Commerce languages groupation indicates this (sourced online).
 * I would also like to list here the following:
 * ''Caveats to WP:PROF
 * Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.''
 * And ''Wiki Common Sense:
 * Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution.''
 * In conclusion, I respect the work of all editors, even exclusionist ones. Yet you must agree this article is not your usual AfD candidate that I see every day. I believe “keep” arguments are there. I hope the decision reached is keep, so that we are not withholding information from our knowledge base.
 * Thank you for your time and patience.Turqoise127 (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thanks for tidying up my vote text Bongomatic. I wish you had taken the time like that to help me with the article as an experienced editor instead of simply tagging and voting delete on Afd. Also, the comment editor ChildofMidnight made which was later removed (I found it in page history, "Let's speedy delete just to be jerks") was not very nice. I hope it is not an indication of motivation for this nomination....Turqoise127 (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Since Turquoise127 wishes to discuss conduct and not content, and imputes bad faith to the nominator and myself, I shall also make a few comments along these lines. References in this comment to the article are to this revision.
 * First, with respect to bad faith. As can be seen from my extensive comments on the article's talk page and on Turquoise127's talk page, I have made extensive efforts to engage in a discussion about the notability of the article's subject, basing my stated opinions on guidelines and logic. Further, Turquoise127's description of Wikipedia's content and style guidelines as "my hoops" shows a bizarre disregard for the consensus here, and comments that I "dislike the article" or harbor "some prejudice against it or me" are unjustified. Imputations of bad faith on my part should be refactored,
 * The nominator's statement that the nominator "inconspicuously" nominated the article for AfD is plain wrong (the fact of the AfD nomination was displayed prominently on the article itself and notice was placed on Turquoise127's talk page). when in fact it "seems like" the nominator "did not look at article very well" is not justified by anything other than the nominator's disagreement with the conclusion&mdash;an unjustified assumption of other than good faith (openly acknowledged by the nominator as such) that should be refactored.
 * Turquoise127 has engaged in inappropriate WP:CANVASsing (see here), spreading conspiracy theories in the process.
 * Despite being active for half a year, Turquoise127 pleads to being "relatively new here" and has made almost no contributions to article space outside of the article at hand.
 * Back to questions of content.
 * Turquoise127 makes a general case that translation is important, hence translators are notable. This is fallacious and in contrast to WP:NOTINHERITED. While it is certainly the case that correct translations are important, that does not give rise to the notability of any specific translator or even to the translation profession for any country, region, or specialty. For a possibly imperfect analogy, consider an atomic bomb assembly person&mdash;it is obviously critical that someone do that job correctly, but we wouldn't expect to see encyclopedia articles even about shop foremen/women for such a role.
 * The claim of notability under GNG/BIO relies on the claimed "significant coverage" on television. This claim fails as the coverage is neither significant, nor of the subject, but rather of an initiative (even if linked to the subject). If the initiative itself has garnered significant coverage&mdash;which is not suggested by the article (in fact, the contrary is in regards the newspaper coverage, generally more probative than non-news shows equivalent to Good Morning America), then it may be notable, but that is not inherited and ONEVENT may apply.
 * The claim under PROF criterion 1 is not valid. Having authored one paper used in even numerous classes as required reading is insufficient. There is no claim of this paper being widely cited or having an impact on a field of scholarly inquiry.
 * The claim under PROF criterion 4 is also not valid. Having translated a book is not the same as having authored one. The claim of "significant impact" is not supported by the claimed facts. There is no claim of direct cause and effect between the subject's works or efforts and the introduction of a major, and even such a link wouldn't really demonstrate anything&mdash;lots of people convince universities to create new courses and majors, but those outcomes cannot in and of themeselves be considered "significant impact" on an area of academic discourse.
 * The claim under PROF criterion 7 again diminishes the concept of "substantial impact" beyond what is customarily meant by these words.
 * The final appeal to "common sense" turns the concept upside down. Common sense says that simply having received some recognition for work in a field doesn't make someone notable. Bongo  matic  18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Response of author to conduct
 * Thank you for your input Bongomatic. I do wish to discuss content, but I believe conduct may also play a role here and be relevant. It is for that reason I engage such discussion. I have not been offensive nor used profanity. Keep in mind that while you may not like this, I believe you should not supress opinions here, it is not a scrapbooking forum; I for one think Wikipedia is important. Your calls for refactoring are simply not founded, I have a legitimate right to voice my opinion if I believe unjust treatment to be present, and I do suspect so due to the timing of this nomination as I stated before and the fact the nominator states in his reason "If a caption of the closing credits is necessary to provide evidence of media attention, then we are really clutching at straws here..". There are two screenshots, not only closing credits, and there is no caption under the closing credits. This indicates not having looked well. Also, another editor who you seem to often converse with on your talk pages in a friendly manner also made a comment that was later deleted that leads one to sense questionable practices. There are no "conspiracy" theories, as cute as that is the way you put it, just some persons' possible overt sense of ownership of a public venue (i.e. the "Sheriff" syndrome).
 * As for your comment regarding extensive contribution on the articles talk page having followed "guidelines and logic", this is debatable, because all you did was unyieldingly shoot down my arguments and used YOUR logic. It is unfair of you to state that I have a disregard for Wikipedia consensus simply because we do not agree. Also, I have submitted a quote by another editor clearly showing how guidelines seem to sometimes be ambiguos "we seem to have two rules now at WP. One, except for BLP, 2RS=N, the other, applying to BLP only, is that it has to be more than one event, unless the event is particularly important." Who decides if this event is particularly important? Something important to you may not be so to me. This is why I listed WP:Caveats and WP: common sense at the end, which you claim "turns the concept upside down".
 * I was not aware asking for advice of other editors is inappropriate WP:Canvasing. I never directly asked anyone to do anything, I simply asked for advice. Is that not allowed in Wiki? If it is not, I am sorry and do not please implicate editors I asked. Not having looked at WP: Canvasing, I am willing to guess that this may be another mis-interpretation of guidelines by Bongomatic.
 * My comment of being relatively new stands. Even being active for a half a year, I do not have much time to contribute, and I did mention I am having a hard time finding article subject not already covered or ones that editors like Bongomatic will dismiss due to one event or alike.


 * Response of author to content
 * I did not make a general case that translation is important, hence translators are notable. Did you really gather that from my comments? Astonishing. If you wish to simplify so, I stated translation is important, but mostly not regulated, and this person was the first to actively pursue regulation on a national level to improve the profession (in addition to his other achievements), and with all the media coverage and consequences of his activism, this translator is notable.
 * Thank you for the atomic bomb analogy. It is actually perfect for my point, but I will restate: Consider an atomic bomb assembly person—it is obviously critical that someone do that job correctly, but the people doing it have no expertize in that and there are no training and education criteria necessary for them to satisfy in order to be assembling. So street vendors could in theory go do this. The person in this article noted this was the case, and took action to change things for the better.
 * I simply do not agree with your assertion that WP:N, GNG failed. I believe it passed. Let others decide.
 * PROF 1, your statement that it is not valid simply relies on not being widely cited. You offer no evidence and that burden is on you. I, however did add the guideline of subject of humanities not always well cited and subject being in many academic libraries.
 * PROF 4, Some people will argue that having translated a book IS the same as having authored one. Some will say it is even harder than authoring, because you are pouring the knowledge from source to target language and relaying concepts and ideas in another language. Are you in the humanities field Mr. Bongomatic? We may need someone of an academic background to assist here. And there is significant impact shown. Introduction of new regulations by national department is impact, and I did show a date correlation between activism and introduction of new university major. If you think it is easy to convince universities to create a new MAJOR, why don't you try to do this? Anyhow, claims are significant impact in my book, maybe not yours.Turqoise127 (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe your statement that "the people [assembling atomic bombs] have no expertize in that and there are no training and education criteria necessary for them to satisfy in order to be assembling" is factually incorrect. But if you prefer, there are ample analogies where non-notable people with a great deal of expertise, training, and skill are required for important tasks.


 * Your comment that Wikipedia "is not a scrapbooking forum" is risible&mdash;it's only adherence to notability guidelines that prevents it from becoming one, not enforcement of them.
 * Your comment that "I never directly asked anyone to do anything, I simply asked for advice" is false. You specifically requested "I would appreciate you voting"&mdash;this is not a request "for advice". Bongo  matic  21:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your contiunued misunderstanding of my points indicates that you do not carefully read articles or arguments, and I hereby implore decision makers to take this into account as evidence that it is "more likely than not" (similar to the preponderance of evidence concept in law) that my comment and arguments are valid. What I stated WAS NOT that "the people [assembling atomic bombs] have no expertize in that and there are no training and education criteria necessary for them to satisfy in order to be assembling". I used your analogy and rearranged it to say that: The fact that the translator profession is not regulated by criteria necessary for one to be a translator, it is the same way as IF the profession of atomic bomb assemblers were not regulated by criteria necessary for one to be an atomic bomb assembler. Would you like non-qualified atomic bomb assemblers? THAT was my point. Is it clear now or should I further explain?!Turqoise127 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a look at WP:Canvassing. Sorry it took me until now to familiarize myself. I think my requests for advice were all just that up until the last one that you have listed here. Let's see... it was a limited posting, neutral (because I did state "vote if you wish") and not by any means secret. I would say I had no wilful negligence of Wiki guidelines since I openly asked all inquiries, while I could have used secrecy.. Votestacking could be mentioned here as a possible canvassing offense, I concurr, but list here that WP:Canvassing states there are occasional exceptions. I believe if I feel I am being treated unjustly and show some indications of it, asking for someone to vote (without telling them how to vote) in a neutral tone would be ok.Turqoise127 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That nominator would be me, not Bongo. Neither Bongo nor myself are responsible for editor ChildofMidnight's comments, fortunately. I nominated the article for the reasons given in the nomination, and in this very lengthy discourse on the article and its status I have seen nothing to change my mind. If this person is so important then surely one could cite more than a screenshot, and if you feel like questioning my motivation, I can do one of two things: a. point formally at WP:AGF, or b. simply state that I prefer Wikipedia to contain articles on notable topics. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It may also be noted that, despite your implication of a smear campaign or conspiracy, it was I who removed ChildofMidnight's comment. Bongo  matic  21:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make a difference which of you two removed if I have suspicions that you two may be allies. Does that make sense to you?Turqoise127 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you note that on the talk page of your talk page, at User talk:Bongomatic/talk? Drmies (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's at Let them talk, let them talk, let them all talk. Bongo  matic  21:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Kresimir Chris Kunej may deserve to build out a webpage on the internet (with the author's permission to take this work product perhaps, which clearly took time), but not here on wikipedia.  Isn't it amazing how sometimes articles on very notable subjects are very short, but articles on non-notable (under wikipedia guidlines) subjects can be soooo looong with all this detail about their schooling, where they moved, etc.  To change my opinion, I'd need to see proof of multiple media mentions of this individual.  I'm willing to help improve the article to rescue it if sources exist.--Milowent (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your vote, Milowent. I originally had the article fairly short, but I copied other similar ones in format and source adding so it turned out long. Valid comment, article is long. Thank you also for willingness to help with the article. I don't understand how that can happen though if you vote delete and/or the article gets deleted. I would love to change your opinion, but what exactly would be proof of multiple media mentions? 3,18, 25? I provided verifiable sources from 2 different TV news shows, 2 different high print newspapers.I showed his work featured at; Croatian Library Network on the internet, National and University Library in Zagreb, Rijeka City Library, Croatian Museum Documentation Center among others. For non-BLP, 2RS=N. What exactly is it for BLP? If there is no exact formula and it is just per editor interpretation, I propose "keep" because I at least doubled the non BLP criteria...Turqoise127 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Commment: I'm not sure which sources you are citing when you say "3, 18, 25"?  Can you copy links into discussion here?  Google translate does have a Croatian option, so I'll give it a whirl.  On another point, the fact that his work is held by some croatian libraries is of very limited value. --Milowent (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact many of his works are held in numerous Croatian national and university libraries is very important, Milowent. It is a satisfied criteria for WP:PROF.Turqoise127 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Question. I just thought of a question, for anyone really that possibly knows the answer... Is there some additional place where I can list this for discussion? Like for example AfD for academic articles or alike? I mean, from day one I have been treating this article like any other regular one and have battled here on AfD like it is any other article, but maybe since this article deals with a specific profession in the field of humanities I would also like the opinions of editors who are possibly in the academia circles and who do not think anyone can get a university to create a new major? (this is not a jab at editor Milowent, despite vote not agreeable with me, it was straight forward with offer of help).
 * Am I at a disadvantage or being short-changed because of what I stated above and the fact that most people do not speak Croatian and possibly cannot grasp the complete picture due to a language barrier?Turqoise127 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The more you make personal comments like "Am I at a disadvantage" or speak of your being "short-changed" the more the COI appears to dominate concern for improvement of the encyclopedia. Bongo  matic  16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, I am sure there are wikipolicies somewhere out there about this already, but when all the sources are Croatian, it does make me wonder about the notability of this person for the english language wikipedia.  Foreign language sources are not prohibited, of course.  --Milowent (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The underlying topic of unregulated profession (similar case in whole world makes topic notable. The inability of some editors to follow sources and refs because of Croatian is a problem here, but not reason for delete...Turqoise127 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am the author of the article. This is my first and only article. I worked hard on it, I am proud of it, I wish it to remain, of course. If deleted, I am left with my 13 AfD discussion participations (like you mentioned on my talk page when you accused me of canvassing) and no article contributions.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's good that you started this article, Turqoise, but who created or edited an article is not part of an AfD discussion.  As far as the article goes, I would like to see better references supporting the author's activities.  It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that the references at the moment refer to the author's writings more than the author. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, editor A More Perfect Onion. I do not quite understand your edit on the article. Thank you, and I wish you had tried to help out before this AfD nomination, but the references that you cited as missing in your edit of the article today can be found below in subsequent paragraphs (both for media attention and academic publishing). Did you mean I should have also inserted those in the introductory paragraph? Anyhow, the "missing sources" tag is I believe pointless because the sources you refer to are in the article.Turqoise127 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The statements in the lead paragraph ought to have in-line citations at that point. I suggest reading WP:CITE; I'll be reading it as well. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * After further thought, weak keep and ref-improve per the policy on biographical articles of living people. It seems to me that there's insufficient information in the article at this time to reasonably decide Mr Kunej's present notability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking at this article further I can provide this executive summary: Dude born in Croatia in 1975.  Moves to US in 1987.  Goes to High School in California.  Takes a few college courses.  Goes back to Croatia in 1997.  Starts working as a translator, translates some stuff.  In 2003-04 he pushes for some standards to be adopted for Croatian interpreters, this push gets some Croatian print and TV press.  Dude returns to US in 2005.  Is working for the state of Utah doing something or other.  Finito. I'm an inclusionist, but am having real trouble with this one.  Lots of unsourced stuff that could only be known by knowing the guy.  Plus there's the problem that none of the sources are in English.--Milowent (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At least you seem to have read the article, but executive summary omits key facts. After the dude's push, national agencies introduce laws, major university creates new major, profession changes, language centers and transl agencies change approaches. Also, academic publishing he has published on the topic of this problem attracts attention in Germany, it is required reading at a seminar. Please give it a better look Milowent, if you are an inclusionist. Sources are there, even in Croatian, I worked hard to make them undersandable to English readers. Turqoise127 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment:I would just like to note that the article was vandalized today by a user hiding under an I.P. address. Editor Milowent deleted the vandal addition and proposed they vote on AfD page instead. Is that canvassing? Thank you Milowent for deleting the vandal entry, but is it really necessary to invite such persons to vote on Afd?Turqoise127 (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Turqoise: The vandal edit I reverted was potentially making a good point (in an uncivil way), so I figured that editor could be more constructive if encouraged to join the debate.  An AfD is "not a vote", so having more discussion is not a bad thing. --Milowent (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When I asked an experienced editor to vote, one with MANY quality contibutions who had helped me with article, I was accused of WP:Canvassing. And look, this editor abstained from vote below due to respect of Wiki guidelines and the accusation. Low and behold, editor Milowent then invites an IP address vandal to vote. Is this a comedy sketch?Turqoise127 (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Question Wasn't this article previously at AfD? Why isn't there a link to that discussion? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Sir, this article was not previously on AfD.Turqoise127 (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per well-written article, sources to claims etc etc..--Judo112 (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain given the possible canvasing, i ain't voting, this is a marginal article, but rather than punishing a new user, it would be better to encourage article improvement. Pohick2 (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Closing comment by author of article I appreciate the chance to provide commentary here and I most definitely respect the Wiki editors' community and regulations (I believe this is self-evident despite questioning certain motivations). I also respect all participants here, regardless of their vote or my possible disagreement with them. I believe that I was able to show that the article is relevant and well-sourced. I supported my claim with ample WP criteria above, and I believe firmly these are satisfied. From what I understand only one WP:PROF criterion satisfied would mean notability, I provided several. I hope all gets taken into consideration. Some editors agreed with me, others did not; those who did not were not very convincing -in my opinion- in their arguments stating no notability (comments mostly reduced to stating "no notability" and not much evidence to support them). If article is given the chance to remain, I would most definitely sporradically keep working on it and adding sources as I find them. Thank you.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Turquoise, we appreciate your comments--but we would appreciate brevity even more. I have tried reading these very long paragraphs but it's too much. What remains is the article, and so it should. It looks impressive, with a long list of sources, but the first two (well, one, really) establishes that the guy exists. Refs 3 through 12 establish that he did work. Ref 13 does nothing, and if it did it would establish--possibly--that once a document of his was used in a university seminar. Symptomatic of the level of the article is that IF such a use of a document of his is notable, one would expect other scholarly sources to pick up on this. In contrast, if I teach The Cult of the Saints, you shouldn't be surprised that there is an article on Peter Brown (historian), and a wealth of literature discussing him. Refs 14 through 16 establish that once he made the news for this quality proposal of his--great, but again, if screenshots is all the coverage there is, that ain't much. Refs 17 and 18 establish that he paid his dues for membership in professional organizations. So do a lot of people. None of this, NONE of this, could even remotely be considered in-depth coverage and discussion in third-party sources, and no amount of arguing could remedy that. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 16 September 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.