Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Husein Alicajic

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. JForget 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Husein Alicajic

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. hardly any third party coverage [1]. awards won are not major, if they were he would receive a lot more coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after giving the article some minor cleanup and sourcing. The Dendy Awards are notable to the notable Sydney Film Festival [2][3]. The Promax Awards are globally notable design and marketing awards [4]. The Golden Trailer Awards are notable.[5][6] The Inside Film Awards are notable. [7][8] So I can accept that winning notable awards shows notability, even without extensive personal coverage. And since WP:NF specifically advises that "standards have not yet been established to define a major award", I won't assume these are not major enough for their genre simply because they are not the Academy Awards. Multiple notable awards is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I removed a speedy deletion tag from this article back in December 2009. At the time I had come round to thinking that the subject probably was notable, though the article lacked references to demonstrate it. Ironically, what has changed my mind is MichaelQSchmidt's efforts to show notability by adding references. He has evidently put quite a bit of effort into the job, having been editing the article and adding sources for over two hours after it was nominated for deletion. However, the result, I'm afraid, is unconvincing. We have a brief entry in a listing site ([9]). We have mentions on web pages of companies or organisations with connections to the subject (he works with or for them) ([10], [11]). We have a brief announcement of a job appointment in what looks like a press release ([12]) on a web site called "Campaign Brief". We have a promotional page for a film festival, which, in the course of quite a long coverage of a number of events, makes a couple of brief mentions of Husein Alicajic ([13]). As I said, I previously thought that the subject was notable, but if this is the best that can be achieved by hours of work by an editor clearly committed to trying to rescue the article then I have to reconsider that view. None of the sources cited is fully independent of the subject, and most of them are not significant coverage either. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But JBW... you were the one who set the speedy in the first place. You removed a searchable and sourcable assertion of notability in December [14] and then tagged it for speedy deletion yourself [15] as lacking assertions. You removed the tag only after another editor used the summary "It may be unsourced, but db-a7 depends on what an article asserts. Deleting assertions before calling for db-person on the grounds that the article makes no assertions isn't reasonable" upon returning the sourcable assertion [16]. When I think something may be notable, I search for sources and add them. I don't remove assertions and then tag for speedy. WP:N does not demand in depth and extensive coverage. What is does mandate is verification of assertions of notability. He has won multiple notable awards for his work and those have been verified... and in sources independent of the subject. The fact that that was found in such a short time is indicative that the article will benefit from further improvement, and as such is not a candidate for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt that MichaelQSchmidt meant all that sincerely, but he has misrepresented my position. At first I saw the article as not making any plausible claim of significance. There was one thing which superficially looked like a claim of significance, but it was unsourced, so I searched for evidence that this really did confer significance, but the conclusion I was led to by my search was that it did not. This confirmed my impression that the article made no plausible claim of significance, and also indicated to me that that statement, which was unsourced , did not constructively contribute to the article. Consequently I tagged the article for speedy deletion, and also removed the doubtful statement. I do not agree that doing so is unreasonable. Nevertehless, following the rather discourteous edit summary that MichaelQSchmidt has quoted above, I thought about it, and realised that it might indeed look unreasonable to someone else not knowing what process had led me to that action. Also, on thinking about it, I decided that there might actually be more notability than was made apparent by the lack of references, so I decided to give the article the benefit of the doubt, and removed the speedy deletion tag. This is the position I was referring to above, where I wrote "I had come round to thinking that the subject probably was notable, though the article lacked references to demonstrate it". It did not occur to me that I had to explain all the background of my thought processes and investigations leading up to my "coming round to" that position. In any case it is all irrelevant to this discussion: how I came to the position that I held should not influence the outcome of this discussion. The point I was trying to convey was simply that to me the effect of MichaelQSchmidt's efforts to show notability was in fact to reduce any impression of notability. As for MichaelQSchmidt's much more relevant and constructive comment about awards, I think the Dendy award is a rather minor award; I am not sure about the others. I do know, however, that the sources cited in the article in connection with those awards do not give substantial coverage of Husein Alicajic: one of them does no more than give his name in a list of recipients. It may well be that there is significant coverage of Husein Alicajic in reliable independent sources, but the present list of references does not demonstrate the fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is hoped that editors reading this discussion here do not somehow pressume that WP:GNG suprecedes all other portions of WP:N. It does not, and presuming such might act to reduce consideration of the individual's sourced notability shown through his winning of multiple notable awards. The article being discussed is not about a man with years of press coverage, rather it is about a man who has won multiple notable awards. Simple. The WP:V mandated verification of his winning notable awards does not require significant or in depth coverage... and what the present list of references does show is his winning the awards. THAT is his notability, not his being written up in news articles. While yes, in depth would be nice, it is not a mandate of policy nor guideline. Further, and while the Dendy might be minor to some, it was won at the undeniably notable Sydney Film Festival [17][18]. However, and more sourcably notable are the globally considered design and marketing Promax Awards [19]... and also souracbly notable are the Golden Trailer Awards [20][21] and the Inside Film Awards [22][23]. Even without significant personal coverage, and even disregarding the Dendy Award, his winning of those last three awards gives notability. And to repeat so the message is not lost, the winning of multiple notable awards is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JamesBWatson. Fails GNG and BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Requiring meeting the GNG is inapplicable in this case as he specifically is notable through WP:BIO's: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." His notability, per guideline, is through his winning or being nominated for multiple notable awards. That requires the WP:Verification as given through the sources without in any way mandating that the required sources themselves be in depth. One need not meet all the various sections and sub-sections of BIO in order to be notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Winning awards at major film festivals meet the criteria for notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable awards make a notable person. Dream Focus 01:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage of the awards seems adequate for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing nominator please note Since this article has been put up for deletion, the extensive references have been added.[24] Okip 02:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Well referenced article. Meets all criteria for notability. Okip 02:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by User:MichaelQSchmidt that demonstrate subject passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, its weak on GNG, but is perfectly acceptable as sources show it meets notability through WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to keep. I still think that the amount of coverage is less than I would ideally like for notability, but I accept that the awards probably do establish adequate notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.