Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Book Circle


 * 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. sourcing has not been providing and keep votes based on assertions unfortunately carry no weight Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Urban Book Circle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A Gnews search result for the organization name yields no results. There are a couple of Serbian refs but with the benefit of Chrome's translation function, the print refs don't appear to confer any notability on this organization, which appears to fall well short of meeting WP:ORG. I have also nominated its category for deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, it seems strange that a book circle recently formed in Canada can only be sourced to fleeting Serbian coverage. The long Politika article used as a source in the article actually had no mention of the book circle. I can see nothing of significance online. Sionk (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think conflict of interest most likely applies here: this article was created by an editor whose substantive contributions to Wikipedia all consistently revolve around the person named in this article as the group's founder. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me sir but before you "think" that conflict of interest "most likely" applies, how about you do your research? I have nothing to do with this literary organization or with any of the people associated with it. My favorite writers do however happen to write for it. How about next time you assume good faith? – Tempo21 (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not enough reliable source coverage here to pass WP:ORG — the sources are virtually all the primary kind. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I definitely feel it merits an article. – Tempo21 (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hmmm, this one is a toughie. I'm going to say keep if the references can be made up to par. The category should definitely be kept as is though. PidgeCopetti (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then let me ask: you say say "if the references can be made up to par." What if they can't? Because as it stands nows, the references aren't up to par and Google news search shows zero reliable sources? Could you please expand on why this article and the category should both be "definitely" kept, in your view, in light of the fact that you do admit that right now, WP:ORG isn't being met? thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. This one is a keeper for sure. What, just because Serbian writers write for it means it's not notable? There are a number of notable contributors and from what I see, even the former president of Serbia writes for the site!. Keep. McMeade (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable source coverage is what makes something a keeper or a throwaway — even the most impressive claim of significance in the history of human expression counts for nothing if RS coverage doesn't support that claim. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as still questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister   talk  06:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Difficult to judge as I'm not capable of reading Serbian. Since it is based in Canada, I would also expect English language sources to give evidence of notability. And right now, I can't even access their own website. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. English language sources to give evidence of notability have been stated. Why can't the website be accessed, I don't understand? Tempo21 (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks to me this article was created by the president of this society. The same editor created articles about the president and the founder of this society. What is the importance of this society, anyway? Does it really deserve an article? Or this is just all about self-promotion? BTW, Predrag Markovic was never elected president of Serbia. N Jordan (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we know that Tempo21 is affiliated? Because he has been quite active in creating articles, a category and a navbox, offering keep !votes at Xfds, populating bio articles with links, etc. If he is using Wikipedia as a soapbox for himself, I'd want to start tagging the articles with connected contributor tags, at the very least. would you care to declare an affiliation? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tempo21 is Djuradj Vujcic, the owner of the Urban Book Circle. He is an independent sports journalist. He is fluent in Serbian, lives in Toronto, a fan of Partizan Belgrade soccer club... If you check Tempo's contributions at Wikipedia - they match his profile. It would be difficult to find somebody else with that level of knowledge and interest in those specific areas. It is possible that he shares his account with his father, Prvoslav Vujcic, the founder of the Urban Book Circle.--N Jordan (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, sir, but how dare you falsely accuse me. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again: I am not Djuradj Vujcic. I can give you my name if you want but since you dabble in libel, I don't trust you. Tempo21 (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have nothing to do with this society let alone am I its "president" (it doesn't even have a president). I just deemed it article-worthy as there are definitely notable writers writing for it and that's irrefutable. And yes, N Jordan, Predrag Marković was not elected President of Serbia nor did I say he was. I said he was the President of Serbia. That's just a stated fact and not my opinion. I am not affiliated: I just love literature. Thank you for noticing that I have been quite active in creating articles, categories, navboxes etc. I do not care to declare an affiliation as that would not be the truth as I am not in any way (nor have I been) affiliated with the Urban Book Circle. Thank you. – Tempo21 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to apology, Tempo21. I didn't know you said Predrag Markovic was the president of Serbia. That "keep" vote was signed by McMeade - not by you. Predrag Markovic was an acting president of Serbia for 4 months. The Urban Book Circle doesn't have the president - this society has the owner! BTW, I think you already voted. --N Jordan (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about McMeade's vote, I was talking about Predrag Marković and many times in the past I've told people here that he was the president of Serbia even if it was for four months. Tempo21 (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Per WP:NEXIST, it appears that this organization has had no third-party coverage from reliable sources (see WP:GNG for info), making sourcing problematic. Without such references, this organization doesn't merit an article. Mind  matrix  20:55, 18 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.