Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jelena Dorotka

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jelena Dorotka

Jelena Dorotka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor painter. Per a discussion on the author's talk page, I understand and respect what she was trying to do here, but I can find no sources to indicate that she is sufficiently notable for a standalone article, whether under WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. No discussion or reviews of her art, nor anything else I can find in a similar vein. Since the article's information is already in House of Bondić, I do not think a merge is needed, though I guess a redirect would be appropriate.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gee Willikers, the article was just created today. I deprodded it because the prodders failed to notice that the article subject was misspelled, which certainly hampered any efforts made to determine notability, and because I determined that a Croatian documentary was made about her (which I can tell was broadcast nationwide in Croatia via TV listings in their newspapers). I also identified the existence of an article about her in a Croatian journal from 2007, which I added to the Talk:Jelena Dorotka page. I tagged the article for notability when i deprodded it to assist in the finding of sources. I guess unless the AfD is withdrawn, there are only 7 days to determine her true level of notability (and turn into a redirect if she's not). Finding sources will not be easy due to the time period at issue, subject matter, and language issue.--Milowent (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FWIW, I did notice that "Dorotka" and "Dorotke" were both possible spellings of the subjects name, and searched under both before PRODding. Since I don't know anything about the Croatian language (a South Slavic language) or the transliteration of Croatian names, whereas the author speaks Russian (an East Slavic language), I thought I'd leave it to her or others to make a judgment on the proper title for the article. I also searched under variations including "Hoffmann." And I found the references to the "documentary", too, but that seems to be a non-notable half-hour production (see here and here) about the fact that she was friends with various notable artists. Really, I don't go around nominating articles willy-nilly!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Various spellings of her name in Croatian sources are due to declension. Nominative is "Dorotka", so the article name is correct. When using Google, it is advisable to look for all forms, though. As for her notability, looks like a borderline case. The 28-minute documentary about her was broadcast on national television (Croatian Radiotelevision). Whether that's enough, I'm not sure. GregorB (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio of [1], see the translation. It took no linguistic skill to find it--it was the reference given ion the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it could be easily reworded, i already changed some of it previously, in fact.--Milowent (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I think that would still only justify stubbing the article. (Don't get me wrong, I still !vote delete.)  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are hundreds of less significant painters in Wiki." Are there really, though? We actually don't know anything whatsoever about her art—except that it's allegedly cubist. It's like all the other information about her (of which we have almost none): unverifiable.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of every Cubist painter, moreover Croatian and with a film about, is higher than of 10 contemporary "genius" who wrote articles about themselves :( I've not seen her art but I know Cubism enoght to imagine what it was. --Ozolina (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So cubist painters are ipso facto notable?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think yes, evere Cubist is a part of that great epoch in arts. --Ozolina (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:BLP. per WP:GNG. It is difficult at this moment to obtain verif. RS because most results that come up are times of when the documentary of her will be aired. However, that very fact is enough for me; numerous respectable tv stations are airing the documentary listed in the sources. The documentary is significant in-depth coverage on her and her alone, and all the tv stations constitute numerous sources. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does BLP have to do with anything? She died in 1965—and saying it's hard to verify any of the information in the article is not a very good reason to !vote keep. Also, from what I can tell of the half-hour show about her (the "documentary"), it seems to use her as a hook to talk about, well, the actually famous artists she was friends with, like Mestrovic.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize, I look like an idiot now. What I meant was weak keep per WP:GNG. The reason I voted keep was not because it is hard to verify information, it was because the magnitude of tv stations airing the documentary constitutes multiple reliable sources, and a documentary solely on the article subject sure indicates significant coverage, no? Also, Glenfarcias, you must be an expert in the languages in question and must have actually reviewed the documentary since you made a statement about the film "being a hook to talk about other famous artists". Nonetheless, it would be simply unfair to ignore the fact that the film's title actually is the article subject's name... Turqoise127 (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination concedes that a redirect/merge would be appropriate and so deletion isn't. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colonel Warden. The nom says, "a redirect would be appropriate", which directly contradicts any notion of deletion. Redirecting is purely an editorial matter, not one for AfD. However, bearing in mind the historic circumstances, the relative difficulty with sources compared with contemporary subjects, and the sources that have been provided so far, I am in favour of retaining a stand-alone article. Ty 07:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jelena_Dorotka&oldid=1148682835"