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. The subject of the article is verifiable, and there is information available on him. However, the consensus is that at the moment there isn't quite enough to meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria. As the subject may become notable, or further sources may be found that indicate notability, I would be happy to do a Wikipedia:Userfication on request. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Zrnic

[edit]

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

I strongly question the notability of this person (also per tagging). Page is very promotional in language. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He got into his local newspaper when he was 15, but coverage is very thin. Even if he is potentially notable, which I kind of doubt, this article has very little salvageable text in it. It's full of unsubstantiated claims (which I can't substantiate via Google) and promotion. The article does claim an award, but Google does not return any relevant results for this (including Graphis Inc.'s own web site). Any hits that I've been able to find have been trivial mentions, such as photo credits in reliable sources. The articles themselves do not seem to be about him. It's too soon to create an article on this person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appreciate the evaluation for the Milan Zrnic page. I’m an educator in Europe and felt compelled to create a page for Zrnic when I discovered he has very little online presence. He is extremely respected in several industries and has clearly chosen to remain private with regards to online press and online documentation. This actually seems to be a trend with emerging artists. Is there a way cultural figures like him can have accessible and encyclopedic biographies without internet-specific press? I know it would help several students engage with a contemporary curriculum. In the art world, credits and affiliations are essentially citations—if only because most artists are associated with movements and styles. It is uncommon to have a newspaper article or cultural institution specifically profile an artist unless they have reached a mature stage of their career. Perhaps this is why the verbiage in my page skews promotional? I was hoping to add several artist pages like Zrnic's, but now feel discouraged with the negative feedback. Stephenphoto (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments and questions for Stephenphoto: (1) It's not clear to me that "he has clearly chosen to remain private with regards to online press and online documentation". Or is the person who uses Instagram merely an unrelated namesake? Another possibility that occurs to me is that people running other websites just aren't interested. (2) Web sources aren't necessary; people -- though not necessarily "cultural figures like him" -- can have biographies on the strength of what's published about them on paper. What sources on paper can you offer? (3) I decided to take a look at his website. Its top page is blank. -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: For artists who have an anti-mainstream sensibility, how do you suggest they receive their due Wikipedia entries? Anti-mainstream sensibility can very well mean engaging lightly with social media and not on an archival plane (personal website). Hardcopy evidence is abundant, but other users have said the information must be immediately accessible to the average person. Not a very sound practice for Wikipedia, as publications and journals are very often localized to regions and continents of the world. Should I be scanning these materials and archiving them on a website for every artist that needs to be added into this database? If I do, I feel as if the citation will be killed for being an unreliable source. As I said before, credits and affiliations hold more value in these subjects, for all artists are a part of a greater movement or style of work...and these movements are more traditionally embraced in encyclopedic form. Would it be more acceptable to attach the contemporary artists I'd like to create entries for onto existing entries for their respective movements and styles?

As I mentioned to another user, I'm unsure of "emerging" considered a red flag, or "too soon" being a valid debate. We live in a world where emerging artists, activists, and politicians are more important to contemporary curriculum than notable and established figures. I'm sure you've recognized this. Not interested in creating an online presence for contemporary artists, but interested in creating articles that will undoubtedly grow and evolve in the next year as their notability becomes more apparent to the general public. Stephenphoto (talk) 7:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

For artists who have an anti-mainstream sensibility, how do you suggest they receive their due Wikipedia entries? Their sensibility doesn't directly determine their notability (in the sense which the word is used hereabouts). ¶ Anti-mainstream sensibility can very well mean engaging lightly with social media and not on an archival plane (personal website). Zrnic has a website but seems to have kept it blank for some time. Before it was blank (eg on 19 February 2008), it hardly scintillated. Zrnic or his namesake uses Instagram, showing what seem to me very conventional fashion photos. Of course I don't purport to be a judge of the quality of fashion photos, and defer to the judgment of people who know. Where is this? (Or is Instagram-using Zrnic a different Zrnic?) ¶ other users have said the information must be immediately accessible to the average person No. For example, information published in Serbian periodicals would be acceptable if these were available in Serbian libraries. Of course, most people have no access (or at best, difficult and expensive access) to Serbian libraries; but if people in Serbia have access, that's enough. ¶ Would it be more acceptable to attach the contemporary artists I'd like to create entries for onto existing entries for their respective movements and styles? No, it probably wouldn't. ¶ We live in a world where emerging artists, activists, and politicians are more important to contemporary curriculum than notable and established figures. I'm sure you've recognized this. Actually I haven't, no. Certainly, some "emerging" people will soon enough be of major importance. Well, wait till they have emerged. If you think that an "emerging" person really is of outstanding significance despite (or even as suggested by) the little attention paid to him or her, and think that this person merits publicity, excellent: write them up in a blog entry or similar. But not here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thorough response but it is not as objective as you hope for it to be. I am left with more questions than answers! Upon reviewing your user page, I have discovered that we mention Zrnic's work in our curriculum alongside some of the artists you have created articles for. In fact, there are several artists I was hoping to create articles for that reference the artists you are passionate about. Looking forward to bridging the gap. -- Stephenphoto (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link here to your curriculum? It would be fascinating. -- Hoary (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User above raises valid concerns. Does not warrant scrutiny. Citations in original entry are legitimate, perhaps could use a few more credits or "affiliations" to further current notability. criticalwiki (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first and so far only edit by "criticalwiki". -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's a designer and photographer who's verifiably of some minor notability; but the web offers so little about him that the article seems desperate. Meanwhile, although one contributor alludes above to the existence of sources beyond Google's reach, nothing is forthcoming. If this is person is "emerging", wait until he has emerged. -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it seems that at the moment we do not have reliable sources demonstrating notability, and the keep votes are not based on policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing approaching reliable sources directly detailing applied or found in a reasonable search. While it's possible offline sources exist, none are presented so far in this process. BusterD (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2014 (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.