Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branko Pintarič

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. v/r - T P 00:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Branko Pintarič

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

Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. I am unable to locate significant reliable secondary source coverage to establish that the subject is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; that his work has become a significant monument, has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has won significant critical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I reviewed the materials I could find which include one small article in Vecer back in 2008 [1] where the a lot of the article talks about the Prometheus group (a group he founded), and gives a little of his background including one quote about him. The article does discuss his plans to release a CD in the future, but I am unable to locate sources reviewing that CD at a later date in a reliable secondary source. The article itself was written by a member of the group Prometheus, so it does not really qualify as secondary coverage. Another source is [2] which just lists him as being part of a performance in August 2009, which would be routine coverage for a creative professional. There is another passing reference here [3] where he is mentioned as the producer, but nothing else is written about him as far as I can tell. The last is here [4] and provides a reference once again as him being a director of a performance, which is a usual activity for a creative. I am unable to find significant enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability from the sources I can locate. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The vec.com article is not "one small article",as claimed in the nomination, but a full story--see the Google translation. It shows that he is considered important as a director. The sobota.com articles are not "passing mentions" as claimed in the nom, but a short complete article, here, the GT version and a =nother short article about this role as a director here. A mention would be something like "X was among the 5 new directors who directed plays at the festival " -- we see plenty of those, and I agree with CV that such are not sources for notability. What more could be found by looking in print sources in the appropriate language is outside my ability to determine. The article emphasizes his authorship, but i do not know what would be suitable review sources here . I am, btw, quite concerned about the misrepresentation of sources by the nom; I would be more concerned if they hadn't given the link, because the link enable people to see for themselves--so it's misunderstanding of what is "substantial" rather than deliberate misrepresentation. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DGG, as noted in my nomination the first article in Vecer is written by a member of his organization. That does not qualify as a secondary source. The sobota articles are in fact passing mentions. Read them again. The first mentions him once, as being the director and then the rest of the article focuses on the fairy tale, not him. The second focuses on the play, and only mentions him once. I stand by my assessment and am quite frankly surprised you view them as a misrepresentation, and feel that you representing my nom as misrepresentation is in fact a misrepresentation (how is that for a mind bender?). We clearly differ on our interpretations of those sources. But differing views is exactly why I provided the links to the sources for others to read them and judge for themselves. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments are incredibly shaky. There are other sources that are not on the Internet. For ex. the Murski Val Radio, the Porabje newspaper, etc. Doncsecz^talk 17:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Most of the Slovenian Google hits for "Branko Pintarič" are for a plumber, not the writer. This certainly does not automatically disqualify the article, but it does make the subject considerably less noteworthy than the "famous in Slovenia" label accorded to him by the article's creator:

Google search string ["Branko Pintarič" vodovod] (plumbing) = 577

Google search string ["Branko Pintarič" vodovodni] (plumbing) = 276

Google search string ["Branko Pintarič" režiser] (director) = 149

Google search string ["Branko Pintarič" igralec] (actor) = 194

Google search string ["Branko Pintarič" scenarist] (screenwriter) = 205

Of more concern is that the article in its current form is seriously unbalanced, serving more as a tool to advance the article writer's agenda regarding the Prekmurje dialect (evident in his/her other contributions) than to provide useful information on the life and work of Branko Pintarič. Consequently, the article should be given some kind of advisory label. Doremo (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2011 (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.