Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Malagurski (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Overwhelming consensus that this individual is notable despite a sense of self-promotion or disparate politics Mike Cline (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Malagurski

edit
AfDs for this article:
Boris Malagurski (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)

Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion or personal profiles

Boris Malagurski, who I suspect is hiding under the username Cinema C (I did not even bother checking his IP address), is using Wikipedia as his personal promotional vehicle and Wikipedia page as his own personal ad. He was banned from Serbian Wikipedia because of trolling, vandalism, malicious propaganda and edit wars. He tends to write nationalistic, inflammatory articles, based on national, ethnic and religious grounds, and uses Internet for his own nationalistic propaganda. He tends to write, from one sided point of view, about the war in Yugoslavia, of which he of course has no recollection as he was only a baby when the war started, thus with his nationalistic and closed minded approach he incites ethnic, religious and nationalistic feelings. He has not made any movies (since he claims that he is a movie director) other than incredibly offensive nationalistic stuff and has not gotten any significant awards that he should have his own Wikipedia page. If he in 20+ years becomes a director in the class of James Cameron, Spilberg, Polanski & Co., then I would be more than happy for him to have his own page, but until then he absolutely has no grounds as he is NOT A NOTABLE person, thus need not to have a Wikipedia entry. Imagine if every single film student with access to the net would now open their own pages after they have gotten an A+ or some student award - Wikipedia would become a mayham.

Due to him not being a notable person, his prior offensive behaviour on Serbian Wikipedia - I am nominating this article for deletion.

Svetlana Miljkovic (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - First off, I reject claims that I am the individual in question. Such accusations should be made elsewhere. Svetlana Miljkovic has first broken Wikipedia policy by blanking this page without an explanation, and is now resorting to deletion, perhaps due to previous personal experience with this person who allegedly edited on Serbian Wikipedia.
As for the article itself, it has several secondary sources, something necessary to keep the article on Wikipedia. Before it had these sources, the article was actually deleted, but brought back after the required sources were provided. It was the topic of another deletion discussion and it was not deleted. Neither should it be deleted now.
Concerning the arguments Svetlana has provided - even if Mr. Malagurski is a nationalist, and it's very debatable whether he is, should we delete the article of every nationalist on Wikipedia? Second of all, nobody is claiming he's in the class of James Cameron, Spielberg, Polanski & Co., but there are many articles of other less well-known film directors on Wikipedia. As I've mentioned, there are several secondary sources that confirm Malagurski's notability - it's not just some student with an A+ or some student award - his films are broadcasted on television (Russia Today being the latest channel to screen his film) and has won awards on International Film Festivals (non-student ones). His youth? Well, many young people have articles on Wikipedia, people much younger than Malagurski.
It seems that Svetlana's arguments are more based on some kind of personal grudge, than on a sincere approach to this issue. She ignores the secondary sources, the awards and TV screenings, and focuses on this persons alleged behaviour on Serbian Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with his notability. I say this article should not be deleted, like the last time it was nominated. Thanks, --Cinéma C 06:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Incredible, another nomination. Concerning that user banned for "malicious propaganda" and so forth - Svetlana, the maturity level is different when comparing the Serbian and English Wikipedias, it seems. In the English Wikipedia community, a single user doesn't get lynched (practically), by every other user registered there. Especially seeing that the user was an administrator. In the English Wikipedia, policies proved to be more successful for controlling articles and other material, such as the arbitration committees, and other measures. "Vendetta" has no place here, or on any Wikipedia. If you want to discuss an article further, you do not blank a page. You have not edited the Serbian Wikipedia since the 15th of August, 2008 (your own user page), or the English one since the 19th of October, 2009 (your own user page). It seems suspicious on your end, really, since you are aware of User:Bormalagurski's (deleted user) history, because you are active, once again, with an energetic nomination for deletion - now even accusing another user of being him. "...other than incredibly offensive nationalistic stuff and has not gotten any significant awards that he should have his own Wikipedia page. If he in 20+ years becomes a director in the class of James Cameron, Spilberg, Polanski & Co., then I would be more than happy for him to have his own page, but until then he absolutely has no grounds as he is NOT A NOTABLE person..." - The reason you are here, Svetlana, is because you disagree (through a political motive) with the message the documentary is sending. That, quite frankly, is your own problem that you'll have to deal with. This article also has secondary sources, and the documentary is now Russia Today's feature in presenting the Serbian view in the Kosovo conflict. Reiterated, here are some sources: *Literárky V Síti, Ministry for Kosovo of the Republic of Serbia, Novinar, Czech Free Press, Bas Biber, Radio Television Vojvodina, International Radio Serbia, Novine, The Diocese of Ras-Prizren and Kosovo and Metohija, Georgia Straight, Edmonton Journal, and definitely more, including those mentioned in the article. He definitely passes WP:CREATIVE. Definitely keep for this one; there are strong arguments supporting that. Take care, --Bolonium (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bolonium

edit

I have initially blanked the entire page by mistake, becaus eI have never notminated an article for deletion before, and was playing around with the AfD tag. Even though I haven't been active on Wiki in a while, I've been long enough here to know that simple blanking a page will not result in deletion of a page, and that there is a process, so obviously, 'blanking' was not intentional.

The reason I have suggested the article for the deletion is: 1) well, I can, anyone is entitled. 2) non-notable person. 3) I have ran across his Wikipedia page (I actually don't spend my life surfing the net for Boris Malagurski) thanks to a highy offensive Facebook group he created, which links back to his Wikipedia page.

Apropo, sourcing - in a highly nationalistic country such as Serbia, it is all the more norm that his nationalistic so-called movies will be mentioned in papers you have brought up.

And given who you are, Bolonium, it is pointless to even discuss the matter further with you, since you, just like Mr. Malagurski, do not even live in Serbia to appreciate the situation there. Therefore, I have nominated the article for deletion, and it will either be kept or deleted, so, my is to nominate it, and for others is to decide. I do not plan to reply, as I have stated my opinion of the article. Cheers.

Svetlana Miljkovic (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are against Malagurski only due to your political standpoint, and perhaps past instances with that user on the Serbian Wikipedia. (I don't want to get involved in that.) The film actually does convey what a lot of families have to go through living there - container camps, isolation, fear. Understand that before dismissing it as nationalistic nonsense. "And given who you are, Bolonium"... You don't even know who I am, just like I don't know who you are. Yet, you emphasize that it is pointless to even discuss the matter with me? Why even discuss it with any other user here? The majority of en.wiki users don't even live in Serbia, if we were to look at it your way. The idea here is that you, me, as well as other users, are supposed to be open to discussion. Evidently, you don't support open discussion, just like your political views differ (which is fine, really). Be open to discussion, and allow other users to participate too - no matter where they may live... Whether it is in Serbia, Croatia, or even Togo. Assume good faith - your opinion might differ, but respect other users and their views too. It is kind of offensive to accuse me of not appreciating the situation in Serbia, solely on where I live now. I do not plan to reply, as I have stated my opinion of the article. - So basically, after offending me, you make your leave? Apropos, if you want to play around with articles, there's the sandbox. Cheers. --Bolonium (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - C'mon, this is outrageous! I will not comment nor Svetlana, nor hers Cinema C sock false accusation, i will comment only article. Boris Malagurski article is:
  1. Well sourced
  2. Passes WP:N per sources, and per Boris Malagurski occupation.
  3. Always has been target of non-neutral editors, again per Boris Malagurski occupation and his films.
  4. Absolutely acceptable per Bolonium article related facts.

As it was agreed earlier, there are no need or reasons to delete this article. --Tadija (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article seems to be well-sourced (I can't read all the references, but I can see they do mention the subject - it'll have to be for others to decide if they really are sufficiently reliable sources), and he does appear to be sufficiently notable - Wikipedia isn't just for award-winning Hollywood directors. The reasons for nomination appear to be personal, political, and based on unsubstantiated sockpuppet accusations - if you think you have sufficient evidence of sockpuppetry, please take it to WP:SPI, otherwise just leave it out. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I commented on the first AFD and thought it was a bit of a strange one. The amount of text on these three AfDs is a bit odd. Usually it doesn't take that much so convince editors of notability. Clearly some of the editors here know the subject, its just painfully obvious. I don't know how to !vote. He's possibly notable, but its hard to tell due to the puffery.--Milowent (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is nothing but a bunch of unfounded, unproven personal attacks and attempts at WP:OUTing. Such behavior is blockable, incidentally. The fact that the previous two nominations failed speaks volumes, as does the fact that the only one who has voted "delete" so far is an Albanian editor. Athenean (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was deleted once. Cheers. kedadial 12:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you took the time to read the debate, you would notice that it was deleted on the same day it was relisted for further discussion. The moment an extra delete vote came in, an administrator deleted the article. That AFD nomination went on for 8 days. If we followed the same model, the result of the discussion should now be keep. You would also notice that this nomination has been relisted for a longer period of time. --Bolonium (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone just lay out the case for notability instead of all this crapola? Are the sources cited good sources? There are no cites to any major serbian newspapers that I can tell. Even if its kept, I see some pruning is probably in order.--Milowent (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please read the entire discussion? Previous ones as well, if needed. Why do people have to keep repeating the same things over and over again, just because some people present unsubstantiated arguments for deleting a well-sourced article. --Cinéma C 22:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I have been reading it all. And I am very skeptical. This article was deleted in the first AfD, and closed no consensus on the 2nd, so simply saying its "well sourced" is not very convincing, apparently. And I am very much an inclusionist. Has this subject's work ever been cited by any major serbian paper? I take it that the answer is No, and when we are dealing with someone who makes films about Serbia isssues, that is troubling to me. Many of the source publications cited in the article do not have their own wikipedia articles, which isn't dispositive, but doesn't help me assess them. For example, the only article in all of wikipedia to cite this "Serbian Voice Weekly Newspaper" is this article.--Milowent (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would second Milowent's plea for more specific arguments here. I can make sense of Serbian (in either alphabet) but reading it is a slow process for me, so it would be helpful if people who want to keep this could specify which of the sources cited in the article support their position, and if those arguing for deletion could identify which of them do not qualify for supporting notability. I remember making quite some effort in the last AfD to come to an opinion, which was that Pečat may be a reliable source but that Novinar and Global Research are certainly not, so I would welcome any information about any sources that have been added since that disussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect. The sources would seem sufficient. The reasons given for deletion seem to be that the nominator disapproves of the person's politics. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 18 March 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/Boris_Malagurski_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1078417583"