Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mihailo Stošović


 * 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 as this seems to be enough time for an AfD, this needs familiar attention to see if it satisfies WP:CREATIVE (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  05:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Mihailo Stošović

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The references that this article includes don't appear to lack independence from the subject. Subject does not appear to have attracted the attention of multiple independent reliable sources in Serbian or any other language. The one award claimed was not one on which I was able to determine any significance. Serbian Wikipedia does no better than the English one. The purpose of this article appears to be promotional rather than encyclopedic. KDS 4444 Talk  21:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  17:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  17:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Speedy keep. I'm not sure where your "does not appear to have attracted the attention" statement comes from, when the references are full of reports of his exhibitions, and external links contain a number of media appearances. And it does not take much effort to find several  . As the arcicle states, he's the chairman of Sculptor Commitee of ULUPUDS, and that fact alone is enough earns him an article. No such user (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No such user: I am very interested in being told which of the six criteria for a "WP:speedy keep" you think this discussion qualifies the article for. My concern, however, is that you have not read over those criteria and have no understanding what a vote of "speedy keep" means.  That aside, I have again gone over the references given in this article: what I keep finding is that the coverage either lack independence from the subject or includes only trivial mentions of the subject and his work— having his name appear in a list is not enough to qualify him as notable.  We need evidence of him having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and so far (and still) this article does not have these (if you feel differently, please itemize a few and show that they provide non-trivial coverage and that the sources are genuinely WP:independent of the subject and are WP:reliable, yes?).  In the mean time, I'd like to suggest you turn your "speedy keep" vote into a regular "keep".  Thanks! (also, quickly: articles are not "earned", they are "qualified for"— this isn't a competition!).  KDS 4444  Talk  13:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would rather that you, User:KDS4444, do the homework, follow WP:BEFORE, go through the list of 12 references and 13 external links currently in the article, and filter out which ones are NOT evidence of him being the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, which include several media outlets, including Blic, RTV Studio B, Alo!, Moja TV and Prva Srpska Televizija (most YouTube links are of official channels of TVs). No such user (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ref #1: this appears to be a self-written paragraph, not a news article or other popular coverage of the subject. Ref #2: Is a mention of his name in relation to a competition he judged— it describes the criteria for the submission of works, and other than indicating that the subject is going to judge it, it says nothing at all about him.  Ref. #3: looks like it is an autobiography by the subject, failing WP:I.  Ref #4 was a blog, apparently (according to its remaining title) written by the subject— the article itself is gone.  Ref. #5 looks like it an announcement for an art salon at which the subject will be appearing— it says nothing at all about him.  Ref #6 is a youtube clip, and while I grant you that it appears to be from a television channel, my experience has been that youtube references aren't usually worth much for establishing a claim of notability because of problems with reliability and independence (also: WP:YOUTUBE indicates that copyrighted material should not be linked to at all, and this clip is marked as copyright protected).  Tell you what, there's the first six of the twenty three justifications you asked for (usually the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim of notability, not the one questioning it, but I am trying to be more than fair here).  Is there a reference beyond the sixth that you think makes the case for him?  Which one(s) and how?  KDS 4444  Talk  16:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I gave you four just in my first comment here, along with a strong ground for notability (president of a sculptor section of a national artist society is not a random Joe). There are few in the article already, just need some more analysis. I grant that the article reads like a resume, and is probably written by someone close to the author (how else could somebody got a gallery of sculptures?) But frankly, I'm not too interested to improve it, just stating that it is improvable, and that we're wasting our collective time here on debating deletion rather than cleaning it up. No such user (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems notbale to me.&#42;Treker (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * &#42;Treker:WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:Clearly notable  KDS 4444  Talk  13:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine. I don't care that much honestly I just gave my opinion.&#42;Treker (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There are enough references in Serbian, I had to translate with google translator, but they are there, so easily passes WP:CREATIVE from my POV. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2016 (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.