Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Ćertić


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Stefan Ćertić
Articles for deletion/Stefan Certic AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no evidence for actual notability as a businessman or inventor.  DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Added Crunchbase references to backup the business section. Service also provides a net worth calculation but for registered users only and therefore can't be referenced. Should i remove? --Edwmgs (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: You will also need to perform internet search by using C instead of Ć. Most of the work submitted is under Certic. - Therefore alternate name has been added. --Edwmgs (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Added references towards acquisition of AlterVibes Radio(Undisclosed Amount) and 2M Investment in GlobalCell.--Edwmgs (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Referencing Cites from American Journal of Engineering Research to improve Academic Works section.--Edwmgs (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Offer - Instead of deleting article, help me fix it by providing suggestions. In return, also suggest 5 more articles about notable IT persons you would like translated from Russian, Croatian, Serbian or Bosnian, and i'll get it done. Let's stop "deletionism" Fair enough? :) Should you decide to delete, at least merge call forwarding exploit part with other article. That was the first ever call forwarding without user consent. --Edwmgs (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable businessperson without enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as clear business advertising. SwisterTwister   talk  21:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Did my best with translation and referencing, i don't see how it could be business advertising. What business is exactly advertised? Got an impression there is a vote without reading whole article. It covers both business, music and published works, not business only. Please at least check the references from the article before voting. If something ends up in scientific journal it should add some notability. If there is an music album with good critics, it add some notability no matter what type of genre it is. If something is not good enough, let's vote after careful check, not just copy-paste vote. Those are hours someone put into translation. I recently wanted to start fixing this page that stays with single source from 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogoljub_Kari%C4%87 What is my interest in fixing it. So it get's removed tomorrow as "clear business advert"?  --Edwmgs (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * as requested, I took another look at the article. Reading several times and checking each reference, I am even more thoroughly convinced that  the subject is  not notable. The only evidence for him founding a political party is the party's own web site--I can find no information that the party is notable, and I've listed it at Articles for deletion/Srpska Levica. There is similarly no evidence that his published work is  influential: using Google Scholar, his ArXiv paper has been cited only 5 times, and his other work not at all. The article is not advertising, but it is somewhat promotional, emphasizing minor nonI also still consider it a promotional CV, and I think our rule WP:NOTCV is applicable. We use "promotional" to mean anything which has the effect of promoting or advancing someone or something, and that well describes an articles devoted to listing the various separately non-notable activities of the subject. 3 separate activities, each non-notable, add up to non-notable. Not everyone who published a scientific article is notable--they have to produce many articles, some of which are widely cited. Anf, as the article itself says, his musical activities are a hobby, not a profession.  DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks  DGG. I can't defend the politics part, that's not an area close to me. Not an expert in music as well. Can't discuss those two sections are notable or not. Business, to some extent since the data is easy to find. Your fact of only 5 cites stands, i did not found other published works except the one from the reference. My starting point for the article is open source SS7 stack that is used in company i work for (Dialogic). What is known fact within telco industry, is that SS7 stack in question has been developed for the purpose of demonstrating call forwarding exploit (possibly the most notable thing). That was my starting point and only connection with the subject. I am not going to misinterpret any criticism improperly, criticism is good thing, and your points stand still. On the other hand, if we are about to delete every article that has only 5 cites, i'm sure we would reduce wikipedia by 30%. My idea was not to create CV alike article, translation is mostly to blame for that, and it's my bad if it looks like that. Instead my idea was to extend the exploit part by adding "a bit hard to find" very closed topics technical informations related to SS7 exploits and call forwarding in question. My starting point might be bad. Anyhow, your research was obviously deep and I do respect your opinion and extensive answer. Joke part: The only thing that worries me, is that by this tempo, Wiki is going to end up with Only Albert Einstein on the front page, and rest is going to be deleted. --Edwmgs (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to add, that's the reason i have joined biography portal project and asked for assessment in both Music, Politics and Science in order to try to get opinions from persons from the field. (Sorry for defending an article so much, but it's my first - therefore my baby :)--Edwmgs (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Edwmgs (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You've hit upon the problem in technological articles--we need actual references, and they are sometimes extremely difficult to find. Ify ou can find published sources on, for example, the SS7 stack stack, try to write an article.
 * But I must not have been clear about the 5 citations. It is not saying that the article is inadequate because it has only 5 sources. As you observe, many WP articles have fewer, and there is in fact no minimum number, as long as what there is there adequately shows notability . (Notability for WP purposes is a very tricky concept--it's based upon WP:NOT as explained at WP:N and its subpages, but the effective  meaning  can  only be understood from the actual decisions at AFD). Rather, it is saying that a published article in the scientific literature that has only been cited 5 times, is not an indication that it is even importance. To meet the WP:PROF standard in most fields, we usually need at least one paper with 100 citations or close to it; maybe half that in mathematics.  DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks  DGG You are not the one that worries me :) You are reasonable man who think 10 times prior to forming an opinion. I can find good references and make good article out of this (just check how it looked like when i started), however i am trying to keep it alive, instead of spending time working to find notable facts published in local papers etc. That's why i suggest "Improve notability" tag or similar, so it can give me more time to make it high quality. I do agree with you, it's far from perfect. But still there are many poor articles that needs much more addressing that could be focus of deletion and let me try to make something. If you checkout the way i work - i am not building any promotion or CV for anyone, instead i am finding research papers and journals.--Edwmgs (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, i did started improving SS7 and Sigtran articles on Wiki, while working on this one as well. But if someone delete A while i work on B and i need A for C because of B...you got my point. --Edwmgs (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies if make mistakes in terminology, i did learn a ton of documentation before writing on WP, but still multitasking, learning terminology + improve articles + defend articles by finding WP acceptable facts. I know you were talking about research citations not article refs. Sorry for the confusion. As someone working in the field of IT (telecom), i know if someone is notable or not. Just like you do in your area. However, to present that to you or reader, i need to find the material. Currently looking for implementation of the guy code in commercial software. But anyhow, you are the one who have authority here, and an option to close this with Delete page or put Improve tag or Anything else. By having a discussion i assume you would like to know more and that's the reason i write here. But in personal opinion, it would be far more productive to let me do that through the articles - not here. From my point of view - if company i work for uses the code - yes it's notable. (we are in top 5 vendors). The field of this technology field is very tricky (it really is), each vendor has it's own specifications and protocols, and small number of people knows how things actually works. This is one of fields where WP lack the sources, and unlike other technologies such as programming for example (where you can even learn to write code from WP), Telecom Engineer can learn very little. Now you are suggesting me to start an article about M3UA protocol for example - and then have professional football player (who happens to be an editor) nominate for deletion as not notable. I would spend whole day just defending articles. --Edwmgs (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Started programming section, and added references towards CPAN, SS7 Server / Client Implementation And most important free of charge e164enum database. --Edwmgs (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Referenced Educause membership and a University College of Engineering research director position obtained through it. --Edwmgs (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 DGG or another administrator viewing this, Would you be so kind to reconsider in the new light of fact that the person is appointed at the university as an research director, and an representative within Educause organization. (apart of other works added). I feel like we should close this discussion and move forward, whatever decision is. Personally, I think that latest additions should be enough to pass GNG. Thanks. --Edwmgs (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * the president of a university is notable, and often the the Dean of ats medical or law school. we've never extended this to lower administrative positions, such as Director of Research. or representative to an outside organization. That's usually the responsibility to mid level administrators.  DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok I give up. You decided something should not be on Wiki, and even if i find that someone was the president, i feel like getting response "Oh, but president is just a figure, it needs to be a prime minister to be notable". By comparing tons of notable articles, i found this one good enough to pass. The overall article quality by random sample suggest this one should at lest be keep with potential improve tag. I Did my best, sorry. The inclusionist put an excellent list or arguments why this any many other articles should not be deleted: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism#Arguments_against_deletion and many of them applies here. I am not going to go against common sense.--Edwmgs (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  DGG Do you have some constructive proposal? What we are going to do.--Edwmgs (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sorry Edwmgs, I still don't find a convincing case of WP:N, and you can't make it up even by doing your best and beyond it. We have an often-seen case of "barrel-scraping" for sources that touch on the subject in slightest detail, and all of the sources in the article do just that – mention the subject's statements related to the minor software company he works for, writing open-access books, or his engagement as a guitarist in a minor band and an even more minor political party. Such sources may be used for verifying some details, but contribute very little to assessment of his notability. No detailed coverage in mainstream press for any of the subject's fields of interest → no article. No such user (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately that's exactly problem with Wikipedia. The company he built up from scratch, and lead into acquisition of TeleSign now process almost 90% of Google, Twitter, LinkedIN and similar 2FA Verifications. The problem is not the notability, it's the fact that there is not enough media coverage. It's not a minor company, it's the company with 1k+ employees. (and it does not have Wiki Page as well). As a result, we have a mess in Telecom industry today. There is no reliable soure of informations. Anyhow, let's delete. With current WP policies in place there is no way to establish notability for almost anything, unless it's Lady Gaga. Let's delete and close the agony. Without this article i would never be able to connect the dots and establish notability for multiple Major companies that were focused on business, not the PR. Don't get me wrong, it's nothing personal, i can see all your posts are in good faith, unfortunately that's the way things work here, and i'll need to leave. If anyone checked carefully via google various sources of informations, it will help him make a clear picture. Unfortunately no-one bothers to do that, WP relies on few basic scripts that will perform very strict search revealing nothing. And what is worst, editor needs to spend ton of the time defending an article instead of building new onces that are heavy connected to the one in question. By latter research i found that article already existed, passed the assessment and was present for years with much less sources in very poor form. The whole trouble was created by editor who removed most significant part "just like that without even checking", and the other frustrated editor who was opposing. I was working on getting permission within my company to publicity announce that his code is used to build up the platform. That would make article notable, but also help me build another page about the Open Source SS7 software, that are unfortunately only two, one being developed by this guy. Anyhow, further explanation would be waste of your time. (I guess you are all busy deleting articles as soon as they get started). This is my last edit prior to account closure and i am also changing my vote to Delete. WP is in serious trouble, just because of one thing: A person who never played football is allowed to cast a vote on player quality. Hopefully, things will gets better one day, until then all the best. I will be leaving now closing my account as soon as SPI confirms i have been under false accusation. --Edwmgs (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If I read previous AfD correctly, Stefan Ćertić himself requested deletion of his article. We can ignore such demand only when person in question is highly notable, which is not the case there. Then why keep this article? Pavlor (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi PavlorAs far as I have read he requested that due to an ongoing debate and the deletion tag, describing that it will hurt the reputation since he was in campaign. Why to keep? - Because I need the article to connect work with SS7 projects articles that are about to get created and finally make a list of SS7 connectivity softwares, vendors and known vulnerabilities. I can't do that if someone goes after me and delete everything i do. If you are willing to keep the article, I would be happy to post a message on his user page to confirm if he want it deleted or not. (Which i Doubt since there is both Serbian and Russian version are present without such request). If he confirms deletion, then I'm absolutely fine and not going to oppose such decision. In mine opinion we are talking about notable person here, and I am sure that's the opinion within telecommunication security experts. The problem is, this debate is not an argument exchange between topic expects. Anyway, I'll ask on user page. --Edwmgs (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * One thing is for sure, I am not notable enough to produce months of arguing. In regards to Edwmgs question on my user page - I try to keep my website up to date and that's the primary source you should use to verify information obtained from other sources. I can't identify fake statements in the article. Would I change anything - I am not going to respond as that would be a conflict of interest. In regards to Pavlor question, i just don't like too much arguing. The reason i asked previous page to be deleted was clear - i was starting a political party and the deletion discussion was hurting my credibility within internal elections. At the time, someone decided to remove half of my biography leaving just the marginal work. I believed that started "the fight". I don't see any problems with the current page in terms of validity, but i am not going to express any specific opinion in regards to those facts in order not to create a conflict of interest. It's up for your decision if you would like to keep the page or not, as long as there's no vandalism. Anyhow, it would be stupid that i vote here. First, it's about me, and second i would always stand against deletionism unless the topic is marginal, spam or fraudulent. StefanCertic (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (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.