Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamed Filipović


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Muhamed Filipović

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: notability not established by any means. Quis separabit? 19:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep notability easy concluded by using "find sources".--Z oupan 20:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: meets WP:BASIC, plenty of sources that are most likely significant coverage in non-English sources. Esquivalience t 23:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Big Delete (as of now) The (foreign language) reference is an interview which does nothing to verify the claims to notability (WP:N) put forth in the article. Both of the "Keep" comments are non-sequiturs. One implies that it's the job of reviewers or readers to find corroborating info. The other states that the article meets WP:BASIC without any explanation of HOW the requirement is met. Unless someone comes up with corroborating references/sources--time to delete. Tapered (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ^So... Why not be constructive instead of deleting it? Added English-language sources.--Z oupan 04:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The title of this page is "Articles for Deletion!" 2) I edit pages that interest me and about which I know a bit. This doesn't qualify on either count. 3) First, you tell visitors to the page to be constructive without naming any sources--to wit, "go out and find the stuff" instead of providing the info yourself. Then when I point this out, you suggest that I, personally do it! If you're so interested, do it for yourself. 4) Are you familiar with the term 'chutzpah?' If not, know that you practice it at a high level. Tapered (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "I edit pages that interest me and about which I know a bit", so based on this (that you have no clue about this person), you assumed that the article should be "Big Deleted". There is a button – I did not ask you to personally do anything, but explained that there are plenty of sources showing notability.--Z oupan 23:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not acknowledging your improvement of the article. I've struck though my "Delete" recommendations. My reasoned and clear Deletion recommendation was based on Wikipedia notability and source guidelines--nothing else. It had nothing to do with my knowledge about the subject. But since I don't know much about him and am not at all interested in him, I'm under no obligation at all to research him. To suggest any more than that is the worst sort of polemics. Tapered (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Any more to say, please put on one of our Talk pages. Tapered (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * says, "But since I don't know much about him and am not at all interested in him, I'm under no obligation at all to research him." You don't know you are actually supposed to at least try to find sources before you recommend keep/delete based on WP:N...? (WP:MUST) If that sounds like an uninteresting chore for topics you don't know much about and are not interested in, you should roll on over to WP:DISCUSSAFD and get a load of this lifechanger: "You do not have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if: A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." Wut wut WUT? —Мандичка YO 😜 00:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Steroid keep - all you gotta do is flip over to his Bosnian profile. This guy is clearly a baller. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:27, 23 May 2015 (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.