Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanja Tatomirovic


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Tanja Tatomirovic

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Seems to be a lady doing her job.  scope_creep Talk  09:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women,  and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Resume-like career summary. The only links I find are and, an author summary and a Forbes Council page, both of with don't help the PROMO aspect here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Photo is credited to the LBS Team, which has a marketing feel, thus another red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Considering there is enough content and enough references backing up the content and advising who she is, she is as relevant as many other articles that have meaningless information and those articles are still on Wikipedia. Боки   ✉  00:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Quantity of references aren't a criteria in notability. Your comment about about other articles, is an argument avoid in WP:AFD. If you have WP:THREE reference that indicate the person is notable, post them up so they can be examined.   scope_creep Talk  13:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep I am not attacking anyone personally but as an example, having bunch of association football profiles for players who play in third tier football and will (probably) never move out of it, for me personally, is waist of Wikipedia space. As @Oaktree b said, I'd rather see some good articles but it is what it is.
 * Maybe @Nikibgd can help us elaborate as to what was the purpose of creating Wiki page other than self promotion on high domain authority website.
 * Боки  ✉  00:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * no idea why it was created. In fact, Tatomirovic also reached out to the person who created it and that user had no particular reason to create it. Ultimately, I think she's just following her online rep, noticed the page, and decided to make an effort to keep it. Haven't asked why and, considering her already big media exposure in Serbia, not sure how it would benefit her career additionally. Nikibgd (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * With this response, I am editing my response to delete as it really means nothing and there was no purpose of creating this page. Боки   ✉  23:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case since your changing your !vote, I would score out your keep !vote by enclosng it is tags so the closing admin knows you have changed it. I would put a wee note next to it as well explainng it     scope_creep Talk  07:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * for clarity - Tatomirovic doesn't personally know the user who created this page and hadn't been in contact with them until now. Nikibgd (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is full of meaningless information, but so long as it's well-sourced, it can stay. I wouldn't call most memes noteworthy, but they have articles and can stay. My opinions on the subject don't change how notability works for Wikipedia. I would love to see more articles about human history rather than the latest tik tok fad, but it is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not well sourced though. We will go through the references.   scope_creep Talk  15:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that the first draft was not well-sourced and did not adhere to Wikipedia standards for living person's bio/page. Full disclosure: I know the person about whom this page is through our professional network and she reached out to me - she claims not to have created the page or asked for the page to be created, but would like it cleaned up and to remain. So I took her bio, significantly copyedited, reformatted, and tried to pull as many quality links as I could. Since she's been a PR pro for several major companies, it's difficult to parse what to include and what not to. Tried to keep it simple. Apologies if this throws a wrench in your review of the references, but I'll be around and happy to help remove or add anything that's needed!  Nikibgd (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No wrenches have been thrown. Being a PR Pro doesn't make you you notable. It is a the most banal and generic article of somebody doing there job. Your just a chancer. We will have a look at the references.   scope_creep Talk  03:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the original ref sources sucked. And I did a poor job fixing that the first time around. This time, I did much better. In short, Tatomirovic is pretty well known in Belgrade societal and definitely professional circles. I sifted through the hundreds of PR statements she's made for others and have found several interviews in highly regarded Serbian media specifically about her, her book, etc.. I'll go through all of the refs and my rationale in using/keeping them.
 * Ref 1 [1 ] Passing mention of Tatomirovic in an old TV report, but thought I'd keep it because the experience of students and journalists under S. Milosevic in Serbia was "interesting" to put it mildly. Also cool with having it removed though.
 * Ref 2 [2 ] Link to Tatomirovic's book description on goodreads.com for added info, also cool for having this removed.
 * Ref 3 [3 ] Interviews with Tatomirovic about her book in Politika newspapers online version. Politika is the oldest newspaper still being published in the Balkan region and the paper of record in Serbia.
 * Ref 4 [4 ] Article in PCPress announcing Tatomirovic joining the Forbes Comms Council. PCPress is one of the most popular monthly magazines in Serbia, established in 1995.
 * Ref 5 [5 ] Interview in Pancevo, Serbia local media about Tatomirovic's love of dogs, which I only included as a reference because it mentions details of her private life and that she lives between Serbia and Germany.
 * Ref 6 [6 ] Another link from PCPress, this time an interview with Tatomirovic. Only included as reference for fun fact that she had a novel character based on her, although that factoid is also available in the Wikipedia article about the author of said novel, Igor Marojevic.
 * Removed all potentially PROMO references. Nikibgd (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * These are even worse that ones you had before. Forbes council is paid for. Anybody can join. Goodreads is social media and is non-rs. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY. Passing mentions can't be used prove notability. She is plainly non-notable.   scope_creep Talk  08:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Lets examine the references 1-7
 * Ref 1 Profile and vlog selling herself. It is plain advertisement that any business person would do.  It is WP:SPS source.  It is WP:PRIMARY.
 * Ref 2 TV news archive. It is a passing mention at best.
 * Ref 3  This the ladies blog. It is WP:SPS source.
 * Ref 4  "The spokeswoman of the Higher Commercial Court in Belgrade, Tanja Tatomirović" Another passing mention and WP:PRIMARY.
 * Ref 5 "Tanja Tatomirović, PR of that company, confirmed for Danas."  That is another passing mention. It is WP:PRIMARY even though it is junk.
 * Ref 6 Paid role. I could join. Is non-rs.
 * Ref 7  A story written by Tatomirovic.

There is either primary sources, SPS sources or passing mentions. They are really poor mentions. They are particularly poor and none of it constitutes a claim to notability.  scope_creep Talk  03:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with most of this. And thanks for reviewing the sources and the clarity on that here. Appreciated your time on this, for real. What I can say is that Tatomirovic, due to her visible roles, is a visible and known figure in Serbian media. Which, as you said, just means she's doing her job well. However, she's also a staple of the Belgrade "scene" and has a novel character based on her. All of this doesn't mean she's notable outside of Serbia. So not sure how that applies to English-language Wikipedia. Anyway, I'll try to dig up two or three more sources from established media that are more than a passing mention and will then leave it up to you guys. Nikibgd (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I have previous mentioned in this discussion that I know Tatomirovic personally through professional circles, as well as that she reached out to me regarding this article and that I was in touch with her. I believed this to be enough of a COI disclosure and didn't want to take up any more room here. However, @Scope creep has pointed out that my conflict of interest needs clarification. Here it is.
 * While I am a communications consultant that gets paid, among other things, for online reputation management consulting, I am NOT being paid to participate in this discussion or to keep this article up.
 * Have I consulted for Tatomirovic in the past? Yes. Will I be receiving any remuneration from anyone dependent on whether or not this article is removed or kept? Absolutely not.
 * And because I know Tatomirovic, as previously disclosed, I have refrained from voting keep/delete or expressing any opinions of my own, and am doing my best to simply contribute to the article. Nikibgd (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete promotional CV-like article, it's not clear why she would be notable enough for Wikipedia. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The keep !vote above has been turned into a delete !vote by editor Боки.   scope_creep Talk  07:15, 12 September 2023 (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.