Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Jovicic
Appearance
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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This person has been making the news in Australia for the past few weeks because of a deportation dispute. That hardly makes him worthy of his own article in Wikipedia. A year from now no one will remember him. Edrigu 01:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan
02:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is an important political issue in Australia. If it truly is forgotten in a year, we can delete it then. --Bduke 03:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is that accepted practice, to delete an article when the subject is no longer making news? Schizombie 11:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideally, an article should not be created in the first place unless there is reason to believe that the news event is significant enough to be notable even in the future when it's no longer a news event. At least that's my understanding of it, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Edrigu 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is that accepted practice, to delete an article when the subject is no longer making news? Schizombie 11:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Of course no-one will remember him if there is no written record. - Borofkin 03:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable controversy . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Bduke. -- Vary | Talk 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Bduke. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as of WP:BIO, "People still alive", "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". --Royal Blue 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Royal Blue. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 10:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm sure there are some people who would like us to forget about him. Cnwb 00:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A search of an Australian and New Zealand shows 149 newspaper and magazine articles mentioning this case. There has been a great deal of publicity about this and similar cases placing pressure on the minister Amanda Vanstone and her department. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It may be very convienient for one politician if everyone were to forget about him. And, if you delete it, they may just. But Wikipedia is not here to do Amanda Vanstone's dirty work. This is an encyclopedia, not a political organ. Other persons who have been mishandled by politicians in the past have not been forgotten (Sacco and Vanzetti, Willy Horton, Stanley "Tookie" Williams). They are still listed with their own pages, despite the acute embarrassment felt by those who have been embarrassed by them. These articles have historical and social value, and they should not be erased just because someone realised too late that they live in the public eye, and are accountable to the public they serve. Wandering Star 20:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I fear that the majority of people voting here are Australians, specifically Australians with the same POV about Australian immigration politics, and therefore the vote result will not be an accurate reflection of all of Wikipedia but rather just a certain Australian POV. I would like to see more non-Australians vote, because they can look at it from an unbiased perspective. Edrigu 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I fear that you have mistaken me for an Australian. May I suggest that you look at the user profile, where you will find it plainly stated that I am American. Perhaps you could do the same for the other users as well, and thus become better able to formulate a theory on what the origin of the opinions posted here may be. Perhaps it has nothing at all to do with a national bias. Perhaps you simply hold the minority opinion. Wandering Star 23:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- My comment wasn't directed at you, but was just a general observation, so I haven't mistaken you for anything. Also, I couldn't check your user profile as you suggest because your username isn't a link. And a brief check through the profiles of other voters confirms that most of them are Australians. In any case, I would still be happier if more non-Australians voted. If most Wikipedians (not just Australians with a specific POV about immigration politics) do think that this article shouldn't be deleted, then that's fine with me. Edrigu 02:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
- Comment. I am Australian and I do have a POV about immigration politics, but I keep it out of Wikipedia. Whatever your POV the politics around the subject is important. I agree it is more important in Australia than elsewhere, but so what. There are thousands of articles that are important in the USA but are not really that important elsewhere. I therefore respect the judgement of Australian wikipedians on this article more than I do that of non-Australians. I think they are making a judgement to keep it because it is important. To suggest it arises from their POV is close to insulting. --Bduke 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notable now (for media, but not for WP), but in a few months (or a month) definitely not notable for media also (references will blow into the wind). We should omit political opinions in WP. I'm not Australian, look what we did in WP (Slovenia - The erased), that's the thema for media and the article in WP will be the target for different opinions day by day. This should also be protected against recreation. --Mane 15:27, 8 March 2006 (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.