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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sofija Skoric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP — galloping headlong toward the edge of an outright public relations advertisement — of a writer, without a shred of reliable source coverage to support it: the "references" here are two primary sources and a library directory, and a Google News search brings up just six hits all of which are just glancing namechecks rather than substantive coverage. All of which puts her at exactly zero on the WP:GNG scale. No writer ever gets an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because she exists; RS coverage must be present to support one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nom is overstated. This is an emeritus or retired librarian, editor, writer, founder and president of an a significant-sounding organization, and an award-winner, not a self-promoting writer wannabe. Perhaps tag for some more references? But seems notable on her own. And the organization also seems notable. It is a combo article; if either is notable then the article is to be kept, though a rename could be suggested. (Take note, user:Orthodox2014, what do you think?) doncram 04:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a decidedly advertorial tone (not quite enough to be speediable on sight as a G11, but definitely enough that it's not neutral and most certainly does need a significant rewrite), and is parked on exactly zero reliable sources — and I did more than enough WP:BEFORE to determine that there aren't solidly better sources out there. No writer ever gets an exemption from having to be properly sourced just because the article makes impressive-sounding claims, especially if it's a WP:BLP. Bearcat (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is not promotional! There is no product or service or religion or anything available to be sold. "Advertorial" does not apply.
2. I am sure you'd like to find some negativity to express...perhaps some library users who hate her because she found them stealing library materials? Or a former colleague who has a grudge because she was promoted over them 30 or 40 years ago? Do you know that she has some evil side that must be exposed? There really do exist near-retirement persons who are beloved by all that know them. In such a case, an article should not gush with adjectives, but insubstantial/made-up controversy should not be included either.
3. She is near retirement and is not in Google news. RS sources would be dead-tree and/or specialized and behind paywalls. Tag it and provide explanation at the Talk page about what kind of sourcing is desirable, and wait at least a year. Don't expect an immediate substantial reply to rant that could well seem offensive to non-regular editors. Avoid driving potential editors away just because they won't dive into angry mudslinging culture. :) -doncram 13:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Promotional" does not require the subject to be a product or service; it is entirely possible to write a promotionally toned article about a person, and several parts of this article do cross over that line. POV-toned language is not given a pass just because the article topic is a person rather than a company. And a WP:BLP does not get a year of "allowed to exist on purely primary and directory sourcing just to see if better sourcing becomes possible", either — a BLP has to have reliable sources in it right off the bat, gets no period of even temporary exemption from that, and is a candidate for AFD or prod if it isn't fixed immediately. And I didn't say anything about the necessity of including controversy or negativity whatsoever — your entire point #2 is a strawman that you made up in your own head, not a thing I said or implied or thought or suggested in any way whatsoever. I talked about the necessity of including reliable sourcing, and the necessity of toning down the places where the article is already gushing with POV adjectives — nowhere in this entire discussion have I ever suggested that her includability was in any way dependent on finding evidence of criticism or unpopularity. Notability on Wikipedia is a factor of sourcing, not a factor of how beloved a person is or isn't in her personal life. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're both kind of right. The article does read like a puff piece at places, but I've seen worse, and yes, sourcing is currently way below BLP standard. However, WP has this odd practice that AFD is not cleanup (that I'm not a fan of, I try to follow WP:HEY when I'm marginally interested in it), so we in 99% cases assess only the subject's worthiness of an article (and I think it's here), even if the article itself is unadulterated crap; WP:TNT is, unfortunately, applied much less often that it should. However, this one is not that bad, at least if we incorporate some of sources I dug up and tone down the puffery. I must notice we've wasted more time & bytes in this debate than it would take to improve it... No such user (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, find sources says otherwise. --Zoupan 14:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Find sources" brings up a lot of namechecks of her existence in sources that can't support notability in a WP:BLP, like primary sources and simple directories — it does not bring up a lot, or even really any at all, of the reliable source coverage about her that it would take to carry the referencing in an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I investigated a little, including sources in Serbian. She is active in Serbian diaspora organizations, and she is the founder and president of Serbian Heritage Academy of Canada [1] (founded in 1981, so likely pretty promenent), and a member of board of Serbian Unity congress [2]. She has been interviewed several times in those roles, 2003. 2006 2001. In 2015 she authored an exhibition in Belgrade on Canadian medicinal missions in Serbia during WWI [3]. However, I can't find much sources about her. I'm undecided if she passes the GNG bar, but on retrospect probably yes. No such user (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best as this is currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you No such user for your sources including in Serbian language. From reading in them I see there will further be Canadian and Serbian news articles (deadtree) about her and her work. For just one newsworthy example: in 1984 for an exhibit and presentation she created, and awards received for doing so, including in person from the Premier of Ontario and, presumably also in person from the President of Serbia. Some points:
  • President of SHA, one of 5 founding members, achievements described here.
  • She was the one who created an academic exhibit and presentation about Canadian medical volunteers in Serbia during World War I. The project was "officially supported by both states, Yugoslavia and Canada". The exhibit opened at the University of Toronto on November 11, 1984, Remembrance Day..... "SHA was awarded a special Citation from Bill Davis, the Premier of Ontario, for this endeavour." Skoric presented the exhibit in Serbia along with outgoing and incoming Canadian ambassadors James Bissett, at the National Library in Belgrade, and then traveling to many cities. "After completing the tour, the exhibit was gifted to the Serbian Medical Society’s Museum of Serbian Medicine in Belgrade and at that time another “Thank you Canadians” plaque was unveiled at the Museum. Special recognition and medals were awarded to the organizers as symbols of gratitude by the Society of the Descendants of the Salonika Veterans."([4]) ))
  • She won awards: "For her work in promoting Serbian culture she received awards: Charter of the government of Ontario government in 1984, the Order of the Association of Solunci, Order of the President of Serbia Vuk Karadžić and Order of the Foundation Braća Karić." "When she retired she was bestowed with the honorary title of Librarian Emeritus."
  • She established the Slavic Research Center at Robarts Library, University of Toronto.
  • editor and founder of the publishing house Serbian Literary Company
  • "past vice-president of Serbian Unity Congress." Serbian Unity Congress is second-listed of "Serbian diaspora organizations" in our Serbian diaspora article. From Google translation I can't tell if she is "in charge of culture" or not for the Serbian Unity Congress, but that is the largest organization of its type and she was vice president of it.

    Sofija Skoric [obtained] a master's degree in Russian studies in Toronto and [is] a specialist in Slavic studies at the local university library..... [She is a] Member of the Management Board of the Serbian Unity Congress, ... [the] largest organization of Serbs in the Diaspora, which includes about 100,000 of our compatriots in the United States and Canada. ...The nineties were [a] black decade for tens of thousands of young and educated people who were trying to find their second life in Canada . In Toronto there are about 30,000 Serbs.... Sofija Skoric [is] concerned about keeping their links with the homeland: "For me it is a painful problem. They reached here disgust at everything that happening in Serbia, ucaurili[sic] are in their new homes, are not included in the work of the church, Serbian clubs, our cultural and humanitarian organizations".... (edited from Google translation of srpskadijaspora.info page)

  • Google scholar "Find sources AFD" search link above yields her masters thesis and a number (6-10?) of academic articles by her covered in Google scholar, besides library collection/curatorial works (which might or might not be important too). Other hits include academic citations of her works. She turns out to have been President (1988-1990) of the North American Society for Serbian Studies, also, publisher of Serbian Studies academic journal (an issue is here ).
  • I !voted Keep above already; I believe her notability is significant and that there is more coverage (including Canadian and Serbian newspapers) not turned up by searching so far. It seems to me that she is a significant person in connection with the Serbian diaspora, and the only such person covered in Wikipedia at all, AFAIK. --doncram 05:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, found these reviews which add to Skoric's notableness - review of Return to Hilandar (Povratak u Hilandar) by Aleksander B. Lakovic, translated by Sofija Skoric from Slavic and East European Journal, listed by ebsco, [5], part of the review found here, [6] - "As for Sofija Skoric's translation, she is to be highly commended for bringing this English version before the public. Her translation is accurate - although I would disagree with a few of her intrpretations." review of Russian Reference Aids in the University of Toronto Library by Skoric, from Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Canada, [7] - "a welcome addition to Canadian initiatives in this field. .. All in all, this bibliography is an excellent contributions to Slavic teaching aids in Canada.". Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2016 (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.