Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radoš Ljušić

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. This is a biography of a living person that does not cite any sources even after 2 weeks of AfD. WP:V and WP:BLP mandate the deletion of articles that are in such a state. It is not enough that sources (may) exist or are cited in the AfD, they must also be cited in the article to make it verifiable for readers. The article can be recreated if it is also adequately sourced at the same time. I note that the person is or was a member of parliament according to this AfD, which would make him presumptively notable, but the article itself does not make this claim. Sandstein 08:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radoš Ljušić

[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)

BLP with no working references, though he does appear to be notable. Rathfelder (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, invalid rationale. So add the references, it's not as if they're hard to find. sr:Радош Љушић already has a couple, and [1] [2] are quite useful. No such user (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Looking at Google scholar he has almost no citations. Being a member of several political parties is also not noteworthy. The Serbian WP article on him gives only two references, both from the Center for Serbian Studies, one of them isn't about him at all and the other is a bibliography. Those don't appear significant or independent. I see an article about the Textbook Commission's negative views of one of his textbooks and an interview of him, but that doesn't seem sufficient to show notability for the English WP. Please let me know if better sourcing is found. Rathfelder, why do you say he appears notable? Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only because he seems to have written a lot. But I dont understand any of the titles. Rathfelder (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm still not impressed by the sources I see, but as a member of the national parliament he would meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. While that's only a presumption of notability, I suspect there are more sources available in Serbian. At any rate, there's enough to give reasonable doubt, especially given my ability (or lack thereof) to read Serbian. Papaursa (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Hello, WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The subject is notable as a politician, not as a scholar, and has been noted for borderline far-right altitudes and corruptive shenanigans. Here are WP:THREE independent, reliable sources about him:
  - "Radoš Ljušić". Nedeljnik Vreme (in Serbian). 2004-04-07. Retrieved 2022-02-28. (Short bio in Vreme, an independent political magazine, second-oldest political weekly in Serbia)
  - "Radoš Ljušić sam sebi isplaćivao autorske honorare" [Radoš Ljušić paid authorship fees to himself]. Centar za istraživačko novinarstvo Srbije (in Serbian). 2010-07-30. Retrieved 2022-02-28. (Center for Independent Journalism is an award-winning independent journalist organization)
  - "Radoš Ljušić". Istinomer (in Serbian). 2022-01-09. Retrieved 2022-02-28. (Istinomer 'truth-meter' is a notable independent website critical of government)
He is also a political pundit, having written a regular column in Danas (newspaper) [3], and was long-time director of the state-owned publishing company Službeni glasnik ('Official Gazette') That being said, the existing bland hagiography could use some updating with info form the above sources. No such user (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. The first and third sources you mention seem to be more like interviews to me, with little input from third parties showing his notability. Paying royalties to yourself, even if illegal, seems to fall under WP:CRIME and he doesn't seem to have been convicted of one. Finally, being a columnist or pundit is not sufficient to show WP notability unless he's received significant third party coverage--and I don't see that. I'll admit I'm not up on Serbian politics, but the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Show me he meets WP:GNG and I'm more than willing to change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, 1 and 3 aren't interviews. Those are biographies with few selected statements by the subject. 2 is a rather detailed account of his tenure as the publishing house manager; use Google translate. There are other sources covering his career, from changing party affiliation [4] through his tenure as the publishing house CEO [5]. His rather long Serbian Wiki article is apparently based on his faculty page [6] (although it reads like a CV). Oh yes, according to it he was an MP in the national parliament in 2004 and was the president of the Parliament's Council of Education. You're engaging in No true Scotsman.
I grant that the current article is so bad that it borders on WP:TNT, but suggesting that the subject does not meet GNG is ridiculous. No such user (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A search on the English WP for a Serbian subject is likely not to produce results. The output listed in the article is already substantial and seems to be published books (some possibly only pamphlets). I suspect that newspaper columnists in UK papers will have articles, so why not a Serbian one? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2022 (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.