This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
While I don't think much would be lost by deleting this stub, I thought that all members of parliament are presumed to be notable per WP:POLITICIAN? Timbouctou (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so too. If it is not deleted, I will start working on expanding his page. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are presumed, but did you read the appropriate footnote? They still had to have done something other than exist in that office. This article fails to explain the person's general notability, I noticed in the history that I've helped it limp along for years, and a quick google search didn't give me anything obviously notable, so I nominated it. If you disagree, free free to unprod. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote says "People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion [WP:GNG]. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." So no, they don't really have to do anything apart from sit in the Sabor. I agree that this is a pretty low threshold but Mlinarić seems to qualify. Timbouctou (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but you missed the key preface - "This is a secondary criterion." If it can be demonstrated that someone somewhere made a history book that included a list of all members of Croatian Parliament, then that can be referenced in the article. But before such a thing is demonstrated, this is just yet another in a long line of broken BLPs we can easily do without. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "however" in the third sentence directly refers to the preface you quoted. "Completeness of coverage of major offices" clearly takes precedent. The fact that the person writing the guideline obviously was not familiar with the party-list representation system in which most people elected to parliament are almost unknown to the general public before and after their election is Wikipedia's fault. Offices also have meaning only when they are connected to constituencies - but we don't have that either - it's impossible to say who Mlinarić succeeded in his seat. So yeah, there's probably nothing to say about Mlinarić - but there's no policy out there which says this stub shouldn't exist. Timbouctou (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was just trying to be practical. If you un-prod it, I will simply be faced with a dilemma - ignore it, or proceed with the tedious AfD process. It's a lot of effort for something so inconsequential :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
