Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dolic

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. There is consensus that the sourcing available fails to establish notability for this topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Dolic[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject does not meet WP:NBIO- lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable source coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found 1 reference to Dolic via a ProQuest database search of Australasian newspaper articles, which while small and short would satisfy 'substantial' and 'independent', and so I've added it to the article. However, that alone is not sufficient to fulfill GNG. Insufficient notable coverage so fails GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrils (talk • contribs) 02:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found more reliable source coverage to justify the article, and I've added it to the article.Sthdifferent (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local puff pieces are not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point is that even the “local puff pieces” are independent sources which was the original argument. Actually I first heard of Dolic when he completed his studies in China back in 1987 and was celebrated in former Yugoslavia’s mainstream media as the first Yugoslavian and the first European to gain a degree in Chinese medicine from Beijing. I clearly remember all major TV stations (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian…) and leading papers of the time like Politika, Večernji list, Oslobođenje, Arena, Una, Top and many others ran stories and interviews on him. That is how I heard of him and the reason why I decided to write an article about him in Wikipedia. If he was not notable I would never do it in the first place. What happened since then is that the war broke up in the former Yugoslavia and Dolic left the country. I tried to source the article and contacted many of those publications but was unsuccessful since that was pre-digital era (and pre-war) and archiving was far from efficient. I would be more than happy if someone could instruct me on how to get the access to those sources. That is why relied on what I could find on him in Australia where Dolic has been residing since.Sthdifferent (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep At the time the AfD was created I would agree that it would not meet GNG and WP:RS, however, 4 new qualifying references were added by user @Sthdifferent: that seem to meet WP:RS they are to The Daily Telegraph / Mosman Daily. If more are added I would change my vote to keep. A quick google news search I wasn't able to find much more. CosmicNotes (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added some more references. Sthdifferent (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More references have been added by user @Sthdifferent: the PHD thesis cites Dolic 29 times (most are interviews). He clearly has notability in his own field of practice. Television interviews, radio interviews are usually not kept for posterity, at least, back in the days before social media. Keep, Dolic has proven stability and steadiness in his own field. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first, none of the additional sources are the type of in-depth coverage needed to pass WP:GNG, and I'm sorry but being mentioned in a doctoral thesis of a non-notable person just is not that impressive, and counts zero towards notability. In addition, almost the entire article is unsourced; sections 1, 2, and 3, as well as most of section 4 have zero sourcing. Searches turned up zero in the way of in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think most delete-proponents are missing a crucial point here, and that is they are overly stressing, to them, the lack of coverage of Dolic’s achievements (please see the above-mentioned major reasons for it). They are completely ignoring the facts that he is still, undisputedly, the first westerner ever to complete the full-time course with a degree from China’s top university of Chinese medicine, was the editor and publisher of Australia’s, to-date, the only Chinese medicine/Qigong magazine, the author of a book on Qigong translated into several languages, former lecturer and member of the executive committee of several associations, colleges and universities of Chinese medicine and so on. It amazes me that, to so many Wikipedians, it is all about the amount of references and those who have plenty are assured the articles, even if they were just clowns and all they ever did was had ten million hits on YouTube or shocked the world with their stupidities! As for the claims that sections 1, 2 and 3 lack sourcing, that is because there are 6 sources right at the beginning so there was no need to cite them again in these sections. Sthdifferent (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is of insufficient depth and/or reliability to meet WP:GNG. The first x to do y is not automatically notable, only when it's covered in depth by reliable sources. Sandstein 19:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Sandstein. The depth of coverage available here is insufficient to show notability under WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Things like "the first westerner ever to complete the full-time course with a degree from China’s top university of Chinese medicine" do not confer notability. Nsk92 (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2021 (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.