Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Špiro Kulišić

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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Špiro Kulišić (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)

Kulišić was a head of the Belgrade Etnographic Museum. Wrote much but all his works were un-academic with false citations, forgeries, and fabrications. It cannot be said that he was a notable author in a positive way. The article, as written, is without valid sources, based only on a single reference which does not even mention Kulišić nor his work.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of sources and not being notable. --Vujkovica brdo (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Vujkovica brdo (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Stroke above !vote, editor is nominator. –– Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep per new edit, and lack of any evidence of not being notable, and especially false accusations.--Crovata (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment New edit is one-sided and includes just a small number (3) of references. It does not include numerous negative views about Kulisic's writing. Wikipedia demands proofs of notability not proofs of not being notable. Please, provide proofs of notability in a positive academic way and per Wikipedia rules and guidances.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new article revision is positive, it is not one-sided, it has enough number of references which cover his biography and most important information, and there is hard to find the general criticism of his work. Previous revision had no reference for the accusations on "un-academic" work, by which the nominator "one-sided" premise is invalid. Also, those accusations were supported by the outdated political and cultural ideology of the time. Moreover, as can be seen there existed sources for the article improvement by which, under rule "C.", it was not a candidate for AfD. The proof for notability is provided, obviously the nominator is not familiar with WP:SCHOLAR, by which Š. Kulišić is notable under several conditions.--Crovata (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crovata Did you read WP:SCHOLAR? Which of the nine criteria is applicable to poor Š. Kulišić? Please, substantiate and elaborate just one of the several claimed.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since a personal opinion of an author's work is not basis for the deletion of an biographic article. The article could use improvement, but the deletion proposal is evidently guided by a single user's personal opinion, which makes it unacceptable. Sideshow Bob 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.@Sideshow Bob No place for talking about my personal opinion here. See the article talk page. In addition, this man Š. Kulišić is not notable for not a single criterion of the WP:SCHOLAR is applicable to his work.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply The talk page does not contain valid arguments for deletion, and by the way njegos.org is not a reliable source as it is a heavily biased Serb nationalist website. I am not familiar enough with this author's work to comment on its academic quality, but take notice that even complete lunatics such as the pseudo-historian Jovan I. Deretić have their articles here too. Hence, my suggestion is an improvement of the article from a neutral perspective, rather than its deletion. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 09:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sideshow Bob Nonsensic reply. The talk page nowhere addressed Jovan I. Deretić - rather
    Ethnogenesis and Socialist Nation: Polemics on O etnogenezi Crnogoraca in 1980s Yugoslavia by Takuya Nakazawa Paper presented at ICCEES IX World Congress 7th August 2015, Makuhari, Japan
    Dordje Vid Tomasevic Retired professor of Anthropology at the Buffalo University in New York and member of Crown Council Montenegrins and other Serbs
    
    " I am not familiar enough with this author's work to comment on its academic quality" very good! Then what makes you to request keeping this article if you are not able to elaborate and substantiate WP:SCHOLAR criteria of notability?--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vujkovica brdo due you understand that the article is invalid candidate for Afd if you're listing (are those reliable?) sources by which the article could be improved? If a scholar is notable for any one of the conditions, and can be substantiated through reliable sources, is notable. He is especially notable by condition 1 (his work made a significant impact in the disciplines), 4 (significant impact on the ethnography and museology institutions), 5 or 6 (he was official in charge of the scientific institutions and associations like National Museum in Bosnia and Herzegovina). Personal editor opinion is invalid criteria for deletion.--Crovata (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Crovata This user associated his or her empty statements to the WP:SCHOLAR criteria. "his work made a significant impact in the disciplines"? Does this user know English good enough to lead a serious discussion? "he was official in charge of the scientific institutions and associations"!! - really laughable. Personal opinions, incomplete and wrong understanding of the WP:SCHOLAR.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no lack of sources, Kulisic is often quoted in the past 60+ years, and I have added some citations to verify this as a fact. To freely quote two of them, he is well-known and influential. Subject meets WP:NACADEMICS. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:21, 1 August 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.