Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlatko Sudac

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. Consensus of keep is very clear. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 05:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zlatko Sudac[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)

the article is dealing with a person, who does not fullfil the relevance criteria. he seems to be a catholic priest, once with a cross-shaped wound on the forhead. i can see no additional relevance. there is just one source (one link dead). if one gets a translation of certain croatian internet pages one has to read that the catholic church has stopped the public apperances of this man. sudac has his own website , where he shows his wounds. i think, the whole thing is a typical showmanship by an eccentric. also an internet hype, using the mechanisms of this media. wikipedia should not help spreading such a show. Mr. bobby (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See the additional references at [1]. This may be a hoax, but it's a notable hoax on the strength of the available references. If the Catholic Church has commented unfavourably on him, that belongs in the article as well. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article itself is not a hoax, although its subject undoubtedly is a hoaxer. He passes WP:GNG, here's just a few links to sigcov in national media [2][3][4][5][6]. The internet would definitely benefit from a cool-headed NPOV article on Sudac's antics, which ATM this admittedly isn't. Daß Wölf 01:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- It is perhaps unfortunate that we do not have a detailed explanation of the Church's antipathy to the subject. However that antipathy may be enough to make him notable (or perhaps notorious). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive, continuous coverage by sources. One of his books sold 20,000 copies, which is apparently a lot.[7] He also claims bilocation and levitation.[8] (That doesn't make him notable, of course, but it's interesting.) A priest on top of all that, and much has been made of his suppression by the Church. GregorB (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ONGOING, SIGCOV in WP:RS in several languages, countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2018 (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.