Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marija Pavlović

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 merge into Međugorje. Bearcat's argument about Our Lady of Fatima seems to have some logic behind it, but I know nothing about the subject matter, so it's difficult for me to evaluate it in context. I'm going to just redirect this to Međugorje for now. The original contents of this article will still be available in the article history, so one or more of the people who argued for a merge can come along and merge whatever material seems appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Marija Pavlović

Marija Pavlović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not seeing the notability of someone who supposedly saw the Virgin Mary. Danny Lilithborne 20:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - sounds fake to me, and definitely not notable enough to be included, unless reliable sources are added. I could claim the same thing, but that still doesn't mean I get an article. Jayden54 21:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Međugorje. I'm very happy that the article has been expanded by SkierRMH, but I still don't think she's notable enough to have her own article. I don't really care if the article is kept or deleted though. I just think the information would be better suited in the main article about this subject. Jayden54 17:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge and redirect to Međugorje (gawd I hate non-English diacritics in article titles, WP:UE already). Vicka Ivanković is on prod. I will de-redlink the others. --Dhartung | Talk 22:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been asked to re-evaluate, but I stand by my recommendation. I see no value in following the letter of WP:BIO here as none of the six individuals is notable beyond this common event. It's a bit like articles on crimes or major events like disasters -- of course there is coverage of the person in relation to the event, but that doesn't make them individually notable. The Fatima comparison is also irrelevant; Fatima was a major "miracle" in the sense that it was and has continued to be notable worldwide, not the least because of the rumors concerning the third revelation. There's a movie[1], Mel Gibson may make another[2], there's been at least one thriller written about it[3], etc. I would hate for some kind of "equivalence" rule to lead us to have articles about the Madonna under the Chicago bridge.[4] If I may coin a phrase which may seem incosiderate, I'd call this something like holyspiritcruft. In other words, primarily of interest to believers/fans of Catholicism and mystical visions in particular, which are not universally admired by all Catholics, I can say authoritatively. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the article Međugorje. If there are ever multiple independent reliable sources about her, an article could be recreated. Edison 00:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• The three girls who saw Our Lady of Fatima have their own articles. I see no remotely convincing reason why seeing the Virgin Mary at Fatima is notable but seeing the Virgin Mary at Medjugorje isn't. And I'm not Catholic, either. Keep unless there's actually a valid reason to treat the Fatima and Medjugorje incidents differently from each other. Bearcat 06:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge-or weak Keep Bearcat makes a good point, so I read the articles on Fatima and the three girls. Under the premise that the Fatima article is long it makes sense to move the major participants to their own pages; however, the Međugorje article seems sufficiently short enough that the participants could be listed there with redirects from their names. I dispute the premise of the nomination since the nominator is citing his own disbelief in what is a notable event, which is irrelevant to good editing at Wikipedia. Danny should become more familiar with the Wikipedia policies before evaluating other people's work.--Kevin Murray 07:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I change my vote per SkierRMH's rewrite and research. Kevin Murray 06:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I would say merge, but there's really nothing worth merging. The person who created the article admitted on the talk page of Vicka Ivanković that he was adding this articles just so Google would scan them easily. He doesn't seem to understand that Google will pick their names out of the Međugorje article just fine. Hatch68 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect now, too short for an article. Pavel Vozenilek 17:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was living in Italy in the early 90's and recall these "visionaries" being constant gigantic news, mostly in tabloid press, but still very well covered. I know articles are out there, probably in Italian and might be just in print. I'll have a look, but I know her and the other children are notable. --Oakshade 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect to Međugorje. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:47Z
• Strong Keep; there are a few problems, some of which I'll fix up:

Diacritics in searches

She married and her last name is now "Pavlovic-Lunetti" or "Lunetti".

A goodly portion of the materials available are not in English.

However, there are about 15,000 ghits on the variations of the name (2 basic one in English are: [5], and [6]. There have been multiple coverages of them in the international news. SkierRMH 05:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have added citations to both this and the Vicka Ivanković, cleaned them up and wikified them. They're longer than typical stubs, but both now meet WP:BIO with no problems. SkierRMH 06:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for expanding the article, but I stand by my recommendation of merge. I respect the content and I think it will live more happily at Međugorje, which is basically about the claims of this person and 5 others, so it wouldn't put any undue weight on it. All of the sourcable information in this article is relevant in that article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-31 07:04Z
• Sorry, I still have to stand by my merge and/or delete position. There's just no reason for the two articles here. Everything in this article is basically covered in the main Međugorje article. I'm starting to suspect SkierRMH might be too close to the material and probably doesn't comply with WP:NPOV. Hatch68 05:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge is at least some of the article can be in Medugorje. If it will barely be a mention at all then keep. This is a tricky one, since she's really not that notable but the article's well-written. --Wizardman 06:05, 1 January 2007 (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.