Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ljiljana Crnogaj Fulepp


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ljiljana Crnogaj Fulepp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This subject that does not meet appear to meet WP:BASIC, and finding no evidence that WP:ARTIST is met. Coverage found in WP:BEFORE searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a couple of minor name checks. I'm unable to access the BYU studies article listed in the references section to determine the depth of coverage, so that's one source that may be usable, if it provides significant coverage. However, multiple sources that provide significant coverage are required. This article listed in the article published by Meridian Magazine provides some coverage, but it's reliability may be questionable for Wikipedia's purposes (here's their "about us" page). North America1000 13:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete the article has two sources, both of which are LDS/Mormon related, and therefore not independent. A search found only a few more trivial sources in Mormon publications. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The standard of being indepdent being applied here is absurd. BYU Studies is an academic publication, that Fuleep has no control over. Meridian Magazine is an indepdent publication, not even owned by the LDS Church, and Fulepp has no position of authority in the LDS Church. The notion that indepdent publications covering a religious perspective cannot be used to show the notability of a religious artist is truly absurd. There seems to be an attempt to exclude every "LDS related" source. Applying this so broadly has just become absurd. Meridian Magazine is a reliable source and so is BYU studies, this gives us two reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Upon further consideration, I do not consider Meridian Magazine to be a reliable source. Their "about us" page states that their editorial focus is specifically upon analyzing "events of our tumultuous time through a Latter-day Saint lens". This is not journalistically objective, because only one type of viewpoint is presented, rather than all viewpoints being represented in an objective manner, as typical reliable sources function. Rather, Meridian Magazine bases their analysis from the viewpoint of mormon gospel only, from only a Mormon faith perspective, even stating on their "about us" page, "Meridian assumes that whatever problem the world offers, the gospel answers." Any news publication that "assumes" in this manner, from only one religious perspective, is not a reliable source. Per all of this, I also consider Meridian Magazine to be a primary source that is not usable to establish notability. North America1000 14:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I disagree on both counts (namely, that the source in question is not reliable for stated reasons and that it is on top of that a primary source). Your argument that "one type of viewpoint is presented" disqualifies virtually all religiously affiliated sources from being used for pretty much any purpose, since they invariably write from the position of the religion in question. Also, Meridian Magazine is not used here to support the truth of a religious claim (where, granted, it would be unreliable), but to support basic and generally unremarkable facts about someone's biography, which is a different matter altogether. Your claim that it is also a primary source is likewise overly broad (e.g. all Christian sources writing about Christians would therefore automatically be primary sources, which is absurd), not backed by any arguments, and does not address the central counter-argument by John Pack Lambert above (that Fulepp has no position of authority in the LDS Church) at all. Note that, per WP:SECONDARY, "secondary" does not mean "independent". GregorB (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete There's something weird about the BYU ref. In the article, it is given as Davis Bitton. "Images of Faith: Art of the Latter-day Saints" in BYU Studies Vol. 36, no. 3. There is no URL, but I think this is the correct URL: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol36/iss4/9/. Problem is, that article does not mention Fulepp. It is a book review of an exhibition catalogue by the "museum of church history and art in salt lake city", which I think is the Church History Museum. The book is I'm unable to verify that Fulepp's work is described in that book, because there are no libraries anywhere near where I live that hold it, and there appear to be no online copies of it. It is quite possible that Fulepp's work was included in the exhibition, but if so, I cannot find any sources for it. Still, such a single exhibition does not amount to either significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject or representation within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums or a being substantial part of a significant exhibition or any of the other notability criteria for creative professionals. --Vexations (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fulepp is mentioned on p. 220 of the linked BYU Studies document. There is one sentence that mentions one of her photographs and another person's photograph. So, about 20 words of coverage. Mentioned, but not even close to significant coverage. Bakazaka (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I must be looking in the wrong place. Which linked document are we talking about? URL? --Vexations (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This one:, which is the PDF from the download link on the BYU Studies URL you found. Page 220, 2nd full paragraph, first sentence. Bakazaka (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Setting aside whether these two publications are independent or significant enough to be WP:RS, even if they were, they are but two sources that offer passing mentions of the subject of the article. Two passing references are not enough to establish GNG or ARTIST. --Theredproject (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2018 (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.