Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radoljub Kanjevac


 * 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. The article's subject is found to have sufficient notability to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 04:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Radoljub Kanjevac

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: as non-notable mobster. Fails GNG. Quis separabit? 17:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Keep You did not do WP:Before. book. There are also news reports. I would acknowledge that the citatoins are very poor, and need to be improved. I would think that the absence of Serbian-fluent (combined with English-fluent) editors (and those who are in a position to read and understand the articles, and then cite them in wikipedia) is part of a systemic bias. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked for GNG (see, , , for example) and found nothing notable. A reference in a book on amazon.com does not automatically confer notability, btw. There are notable mobsters and non-notable ones. Quis separabit?  00:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I wonder if the "book" just added here (and as a reference to the article) is in fact a wikipedia "reprint", as seems to be the case for all the Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn efforts? We don't usually quote Wikipedia reprints as the source of verification of the Wikipedia content. By the way, the ISBN has been pulled off the Amazon list, even though it shows on Google. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The book is 156 pages long. So where is that lengthy content titled Radoljub Kanjevac in Wikipedia?  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 01:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All of Jesse Russell and Ronald Cohn efforts fool you by presenting huge page numbers. But they present collections of Wikipedia articles that are "related" and thus the page numbers are really quite arbitrary, making you think these are real books. Notice how the book doesn't exist on Amazon or as an e-book? At least this is the case as far as I know. Were you actually able to open the book and find 156 pages, or did you in good faith rely on the front page Google info, not noticing it says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" I am sorry but I think you may have fallen for a reprint scam that Amazon delisted a few years back but Google hasn't woken up to yet !! FeatherPluma (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I only know what google tells me. I have no stock in the publishing, and no affection for Radoljub Kanjevac either.  He is either notable (which should be ascertained WP:BEFORE trying to delete the article.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 03:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I am being very nice, trying to help you. Maybe let's see if I can make things clearer. This "book" is a Wikipedia content reprint. Google says so. In CAPITALS (as quoted above). So this "book" is not anything close to a reliable source. Relying on that one Google page without noticing that it explicitly admits this is reprinted Wikipedia content and without checking what the 156 page claim represents is an understandable mistake. Lots of people fell for this a few years ago. However, the "source" explicitly says it's a Wikipedia reprint and the page count misleads you because this scam collates "related" articles to the title in the "book". I gave you a bit more explanation on your Talk page, with links to demonstrate the issue. Nobody is going to BUY this crap BEFORE junking this "book" as a non-reliable source, and I have explained why. In fact, Amazon doesn't even list this author or this "publisher" in its sales list any more. I was just explaining why I will remove your addition of this useless source from the article. Best wishes. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep (Please see below.) Delete In brief: I agree with the nominator: we do not seem to have sources to establish notability. In detail: The "best" thing I found was. But I don't see it as meeting the notability threshold. The new "book" reference has been removed. It's a Wikipedia content reprint of this article from 2012. I also found an 86 page paperback by Lambert M Surhone, Mariam T Tennoe, Susan F Henssonow, published in 2010 by the scam artists at infobeam for $46, of this article "and other related Wikipedia content". You can find it on the infobeam site, but I can't link it here, as it is Wikipedia blacklisted as a known problem URL. I noticed that the preview of the first 120 words or so on the infobeam site has the EXACT language in the 2010 version of the article here. A pointer to the infobeam "book" is also at http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9786131364204. But that ISBN doesn't pull anything up on Amazon. Google indicates no e-book version, and all links to paper versions go nowhere. Various news articles I found (about 6 on repeated searching and searching) are small town, hoodlum, mobster blow-by-blow, very low brow unencyclopedic stuff, as far as I can discern from automated translations. There are some pictures that seem to be of a particular consistent person, and one wobbly source mentions his name in a one sentence passing allusion to his being one of 3 mobsters killed in a 5 year span in Niš. So we seem to have an article that at least two content reprint scam shops have tried to bilk for money, even though the 3 remaining "references" in the article are completely obscure. For example, ref 3 is to "Danas", not otherwise specified, which is completely useless, and the other 2 are basically just as useless as well. It would appear this bloke did exist, but wasn't someone who meets GNG. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Strike initial response. Although all correct when written, things have moved on: see below. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment When you click on "NEWS" above you do get two links.
 * Kosovo puno dragog kamenja
 * Вечерње Новости-Mar 18, 2012
 * d poznatijih žestokih niških momaka Radoljub Kanjevac (35) ubijen je 1. jul 2006KRAGUJEVAC – Na Kosovu i Metohiji postoje značajne količine dragog kamena ::hrizoprasa (chryzoprase), koji u poređenju sa tim kamenom iz ...
 * U cevima barut i heroin
 * Вечерње Новости-Jun 25, 2010
 * JEDAN od poznatijih žestokih niških momaka Radoljub Kanjevac (35) ubijen je 1. jul 2006. ispred zgrade u Ulici Božidara Adžije 66. * U Ulici ...
 * Whether they establish notability we don't know. You apparently don't read Serbian either.  But they do exist.  7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In brief: Whether they establish notability we do know - neither article does. In detail: Because it's a foreign language, we push it through Google Translate. We then look at the output, and use what we have learned of European language grammars to confirm the contents to a reasonable degree. We then discern the merits of much if not all of the content. By practice with languages we know well and those we know less well, we gradually improve across the board. I examined both articles. (Sometimes the machine translation fails to give adequate text. In one AfD case, I took the language in question to two competent linguists for help. We go the extra mile when necessary.) I summarized these two articles as not establishing notability. I kept searching. I pointed to a different source that I judged as more closely approximating notability, but nonetheless not getting there: . I spent a few hours going through this (as I was multitasking an off-wiki activity) so I am confident that WP:Before has been properly performed. In general, I have added foreign sources to Wikipedia articles when it's appropriate - I have no xenophobic hangups and I will happily save as many articles as possible. I try to add references to articles, and research things - that's much of what I do here. You missed the fact that the book you added as a reference was a dud. You are now making much of your own individual inability to make a good faith assessment of these two articles. I am not fluent in Serbian but I can make a reasonable assessment nonetheless. So in the end we use Wikipedia policy. It's not that the bloke existed, or that low brow mentions were made in the news media, it's whether the sources establish the topic as GNG. That's what my last sentence said, and why I support the nomination of this article for deletion. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. Yes, it is about notability per policy.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge your reply. I appreciate you. Thank you. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I WP:AGF. If all the news coverage amounts to bare 'thug kills/killed' and the book doesn't exist (?) then there is nothing there.  WP:SingleEvent vs. WP:SIGCOV.   However, I feel strongly that WP:Before is the preexisting hurdle that must be spanned before these deletion discussions are initiated.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Procedural note. In brief: Closer, may I please recommend you repost this AfD for additional comments into one overtime period, so that we can offset the seeming absence of notification to, the original editor, until now? I want to be as detailed and fair about this as possible. In detail: I just realised there is a procedural step that was missed. Accordingly, I have left notification of this AfD on the initial editor's Talk page. Not a lot of time has passed since this AfD opened, but I think we need to follow all possible avenues. Unfortunately, Gaston28 may not be active, I'm not sure, based on edit dates. However, that editor should be notified (per guideline). In this article, that's all the more important as Gaston28 might be able to provide better details for the 3 "useless" references I cannot trace, despite trying pretty darn hard. I do suspect strongly that the sources may well not be up to par. This supposition arises from their absence on diligent searching, and because Gaston28's edits suggest a local interest in Niš, and the editor seems to have used local reports that would not establish notability.  I did track ref 1 to the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs (responsible for local police basically), ref 2 to a local news source , and ref 3 to another local paper . I checked all of these with their own search engines, but get "Strana nije pronađena" -- page not found / or the like, with nothing coming up on reconfiguring the search several ways. That said, I also went through the entire article contributor history in detail, to see if anyone else had ever added sources, or modified content in a way that suggested they had reviewed the topic in depth and had access to sources. Nothing else came up, so everything here is fundamentally one person's contribution based on untraceable sources that are given in a malformed way that doesn't really help. I think it is reasonable to conclude that these 3 refs were most likely a brief police report or comment, and filler content from 2 local Niš newspapers. A close read of the article also finds that the (questionable) sourcing is not attached in a way that would support much (maybe 60% or more?) of the text. But I think we need to go the extra mile to try to get the actual original materials for review, if they can be traced with Gaston28's help. If not, I will continue to recommend deletion as non-notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (Keep, carried down here from above). In brief: "Significant" coverage is unequivocally met from the perspective of "extent of coverage within several sources", in that there are 9 newly added references, each principally about this topic. In regard to the other potential aspect of "significant" coverage, the "fundamental importance of the issue", this is reasonably met also, although less unambiguously. In detail: The initial input is struck. Although the search engines came up empty of meaningful sources at first, providing only Wikipedia reprints and what looked in context to be relatively isolated brief mentions, by reconfiguring the searches primary language to be Serbian Cyrillic and then doing multiple reruns of suggested approaches using specifically Serbian Latin scripts, I found a Глас Јавности reference, and from there managed to gradually backtrack and get replacement references for all of the material that the original editor had referenced with 3 "useless" references that pointed nowhere. At this point, over 95% of the article is rigorously cited, versus 0% when AfD nominated. The article has essentially been rewritten, point by confirmed point. Only 3 relatively insignificant points, not essential to the article's meaning or direction, remain to be cited. I am pretty sure I had a source for one of these, but I've mislaid it for now. While the "fundamental importance of the issue" is admittedly subjective to some academic extent, it seems fair to say that the topic of the article is significant enough to retained. Compared to many other articles that survive AfD (read either as participant or as benchmarking yardsticks), this article is quite reasonably above threshold. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete  While sources in Cyrillic and other alphabets are, of course, acceptable, it is extremely unusual to have an article with no sources in any Latin alphabet, and no links from any other page.  I have been unable to find a single reliable source in a language I can search in.  (Question Do we have a policy permitting articles on topics that have notability in some other language, but no notability in the English-speaking world?)   To me, it appears that while this gangster may well be notable for the Serbian-language Wikipedia, he is not notable for the English-language Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti <sup style="color:green; font-family:Times;">Talk  16:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * YGBSM We have tons of articles in other languages. E.g., cited to Chinese, Indian and Japanese, for example.  And your solution is to delete,  without regard to improvement?  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>)
 * My point here is that I would like to see some evidence of notability beyond Serbia, and that a.) very, very few editors on this Anglophone encyclopedia are able to examine any sources that mention this man, and b.) significant and reliable coverage of his career in English would support notability.  Failing that, I doubt that he passes GNG, just as I doubt that many Australian or Canadian gangsters have pages in non-English language editions of Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Serbian may be in Cyrillic or in Latin script, with either of at least two scripting conventions. That you didn't notice that some of the references are in Latin script suggests you didn't look at the article very hard. That said, your bigger point does have some traction. He was "merely" one of 3 or 4 mob bosses in Serbia's second largest city, who sustained repeated assassination attempts and the legal system issues. I am presently aware of no good English language source. WP:NONENG is permissive of foreign language sourcing, but is not declarative of adequacy (or inadequacy) for notability if ONLY such sources exist. There is an English language source that I did not add, which denotes in its header that it is the work of Jadranka Tasić, who is an established newspaper journalist who is known (from statements in the other sources) to have worked with RK previously, and who was in contact with him again the week before his assassination. I did not add it to the reference list, because it had a bloggy feel to it, and I couldn't find the exact corresponding Serbian original, although that presumably exists (unless purged). I will see if I can track it down again and add it here. I would prefer not to add it to the article unless there was consensus to do so. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * FeatherPluma, what I actually did was run it through a google search on books. Results not encouraging.   Then through a google news search. Nothing  to persuade me it is notable on an English encyclopedia.  However, upon reading your response, I just ran a Proquest news archive search.  Sole hit is to BBC Monitoring European labeled: "Text of report by Bosnian Serb news agency SRNA".  It's brief, 126 words.  headline: "Explosive device activated under car of controversial Serbian businessman", 28 October 2004, no byline, no context beyond the word "controversial": in teh headline: [ http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/459436002/fulltext/2692CF5593D34543PQ/1?accountid=10226].  As far as I can tell, this man has never been discussed outside of the Balkans.  The article as it stands does not portray him as involved in political events, or in crimes involving countries outside Serbia/Yugoslavia.  I honestly fail to see why this passes notability for an English encyclopedia.  I may be wrong.  It's not a question I usually encounter at AFD.   I encourage editors fresh to this discussion to weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree; that's completely valid. I am not sure I have seen this precise issue at AfD either, but I have seen foreign language sources, inter alia, turn a delete to a keep. It will be interesting to see how we collectively parse this out. You are also correct that the "fundamental importance of the topic" is subjective. I think it meets that threshold much more capably than some other things we do have, a benchmark we usually don't usually point to, but which is possibly relevant when we are in a finely balanced situation, with pros and cons. I am not a neutral observer though, and your fresh eyes may be a better guage. The English language book search is a complete dead end: it's all WP reprints. I do not have access through Proquest to the СРНА/SRNA (http://www.srna.rs/) translation. I think this is "Serbian National News Agency"; I would doubt it's "Bosnian Serb" per se, even if the BBC labels it that way; it would be nice to look at. I might well be able to trace the original byline if I had the text to use as a crib. Is there a back door to access the brief transcript, or would you be able to email me a screenshot copy? One contextual point I would mention, however, is the immense cultural impact of organized crime in Serbia in the Milošević and post-Milošević eras, including assassinations of the ex-president and the current prime minister (2003) by gangs (many ex-military or ex-police) that turned out to have connexions to the government and indeed the judiciary. This man was emphatically not a "top 10 player", and there is no suggestion that he was part of, or affiliated with, any of the subsequently disbanded Red Beret operative groups. I think I saw that he was pulled in as one of the "top 150 or so" of the over 11,000 people detained in the 2003 state of emergency. He was one of the people who contended torture during detainment; Amnesty International got fired up about this, and the collective concern (I don't think he was a named name) was carried in the English language media a few months later, including NYT. I did see some speculation or information about his traveling to Germany and about his gang maybe being active abroad, but it seemed wispy, and was at the limits of my translating confidence, so I didn't think to work it up too much, although I could look at it again (yuck, there's only so much I can take of RK !!). FeatherPluma (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a cut-and-paste of the full text of the BBC article: " Nis, 28 October: An unknown person activated an explosive device under the Golf 4 car owned by the controversial Radoljub Kanjevac in Nis at around 0210 [0010 gmt] last night. Kanjevac sustained injuries and has been transferred to the clinical centre for treatment. The device was activated as Kanjevac was getting in the car with two other people," the police statement says. This is a third assassination attempt on Kanjevac. Last night's explosion damaged the car and shattered windows of the nearby buildings. The explosion took place in the centre of Nis at the Nikola Pesic Street car park, close to the Kalca shopping centre. Credit: SRNA news agency, Bijeljina, in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian 0448 28 Oct 04"   Cheers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that ! Hmmm. We agree: sort of not much at all, certainly nothing even vaguely analytic or conceptual. (What the credit implies is that СРНА/SRNA released the newsflash in 3 languages, so it's not "Bosnian Serb", but "Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian", all 3 languages.) I looked up the Jadranka Tasić source again: "Showdown in Nis Underworld" NISS, 23.7.2006. (Beta) by Jadranka Tasic. This isn't a good source (several issues, including I have no idea who did the translation to English; I feel much more comfortable with an original language editorial source than a translation of unclear lineage), and I am not pushing it. (Also, its URL points to a WP blacklisted site.) I cannot find sources in Sp, Port, Fr, or Pol as far as I can tell on quick looks, so I accept that he very probably never made a ripple outside the Balkans. WP:NLI, a proposal that failed to garner consensus for its implementation within a reasonable period of time, might have been consistent with a Keep for this article, but was maybe not really about this situation. I don't know of any actual policy that would speak against Keep. The nomination indicates "fails WP:GNG" but the relevant section reads, "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." (emphasis added) Beyond GNG general presumption, there are "nonetheless, not" criteria. I did not find any of them as applying. Personally, I am more concerned that this is more "serial news" and not "analysis", than that all 9 references are from Serbia. (or from e.g. Florida). But reading WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, "serial news" is not a problem criterion. Overall, I agree this is a difficult article to push into a firm category. Hence, my big messy redactions above. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You've done an amazing job cleaning up, sourcing this article. Last year, I stumbled into a somewhat similar situation, 2012 Paros beating and rape.  It was at AFD,  short and lightly sourced, mostly to Greek Reporter which, while in English, isn't exactly the New York Times.  Like you, I dug around in ελληνικά (a language I do not know)  In my mind, a couple of  things separate the 2 articles, the fact that I did find coverage in the non-Greek European press, and - this was the key - the fact that this rape became a major national political issue in Greece, with (Greek) national news coverage over the course of several years.  It was, in short, not an "ordinary" crime.  Hope this is a useful comparison.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep perhaps as the current sourcing seems convincing enough for an article. SwisterTwister   talk  19:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources are good. leaning towards notability. BabbaQ (talk) 19:27, 2 February 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.