Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikola Bošković


 * 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   no consensus. slakr \ talk / 08:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nikola Bošković

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient notability. Roger Joseph Boscovich's ethnicity dispute has many arguments along various grounds (religion, ethnic, his statements etc.), so there is no special reason why his father should have his own article. Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Nikola Bošković is not only the father of Roger Joseph Boscovich but also the person upon whom the book Relazione della Provincia della Rassia is wroten. It is one of the most important books of the history of Regusa of that time. He himself is notable becouse of that book but also was, becouse of his wealth an important factor in the country. There are several books wroten about him and alot known about his life. Unfortunatelly this article centers alot about the origin question which is in my opinion stupid if I can say so. It can be mentioned but I dont see any reasson not to expand more about his life. His contribution should be the center of the article. Keep and rewrite is my opinion.Stepojevac (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The only google sources for the name of that book are Wikipedia and its clones. All of the instances of his name on Google Books are in the context of him being mentioned as a father of Ruđer. You are free to rewrite the article to introduce sufficient notability per your claims above - but according to the article in its current form this person is not notable at all. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the only hit on Google Books. So the work itself doesn't appear notable at all. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nomination. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the past, we had a lot of issues with the Ruđer Bošković origin debate in that article, where it was a glaring WP:UNDUE violation - the origin debate is a fairly trivial side story in the actual biography of that person. With the existence of the father's article, this particular aspect of it was largely shifted over there, where it's much less of a problem - unlike the son, the father actually derives some notability from a) having been the father b) having been involved in the origin debate that seems to have been going on for quite a while. There is also some merit in saying he was notable in and of himself as a source for Illyricum Sacrum, which seems easily notable on the face of it (14K/247 gbooks hits for the phrase, but we sadly don't have an article for it yet on en:). So weak keep. See also: Articles for deletion/Bošković family. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Illyricum sacrum was compiled on the basis of Riggeputti's work (and many others), and neither him or his work appear to be sufficiently notable. Both fatherhood and oral source are transitive notabilities, and there is nothing inherently notable in Nikola Bošković himself as a person. The ethnicity dispute is blown out of proportions by petty Balkanic identity feuds - it is not that notable by itself and is a result of nationalist editors trying to settle the issue by digging too deep into arguments. It is sufficient to say who claims him as Croatian/Serbian/Italian along which line and that's all. That section should've been deleted and not offloaded on [[Nikola Bošković]] because it has nothing to do there. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't for the Petronijević/Varićak feud a hundred years ago, I might have agreed with you, but all of these old and new tidbits contribute to a general notability of the issue and the person. Yes, it's possible to upmerge it into Ruđer, but again, that's the slippery slope back into the WP:UNDUE violation. I suppose a possible upmerge location would be some generic article about the various intricate disputes about the Dubrovnik region (I'm necessarily reminded of the latest gem - Skaramuca), but that in turn sounds like a seriously difficult article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The dispute was two obscure papers. The dispute itself is not notable at all, except in the minds of nationalist wiki editors who give undue prominence to bloodcell counting. Biographies of Ruđer Bošković ignore it completely. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. No need to elaborate on the matter. My position is very similar to that already presented by Joy in the above section. Shokatz (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm torn between the natural desire to upmerge based on dubious standalone notability, and the awareness that this is bound to hurt the main article, as I don't think it needs to harp on about JRB's ethnic background any more than it does. In that latter respect I agree fully with Joy. However, while NB apparently meets WP:GNG, is there evidence that he does so on his own merit, outside of attempts to make a point about his son's ethnicity? I suspect the answer is "no". GregorB (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What this basically means is that this is a "X" vs. "Story of X" article title/scope issue... The only other similar case that comes to mind is Origin theories of Christopher Columbus, which is in a whole different league. Perhaps the bar should indeed be too high even for this kind of a NB article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A very good point. As already noted, the problem partly lies in the fact that this article is not really about NB - in its present form is a WP:COATRACK. So, something along the lines of "Origin theories of..." would at least be a more fitting title. GregorB (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep But seek for sources that will more clearly illustrate that he was a leading figure in Ragusa of his time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2014 (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.