Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polonca Frelih

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 delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polonca Frelih

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Heavily promotional and unsourced.

WP:COI concerns have also been raised. Firestar464 (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been repeatedly vandalized, as I have pointed out before. I deny any COI and refuse to see any promotional material in the piece. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Slovenia. pburka (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different issue, most sources are not third-party sources about the journalist in particular but more like passing mentions. The one that goes into details is a blog post. I could see the article to be kept but sourcing needs to be improved considerably first. --Tone 16:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit of research into wiki articles about slovenian journalists and found there are far less third party sources included compared to article about PF listed for deletion. One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonja_Merljak_Zdovc.

Double standards? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. Firestar464 (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Firestar464 is constantly removing well sourced parts of the article. How can sourcing be improved in this case? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're referring to my first edit that restored the AfD notice, which you removed. I restored an earlier revision of the article, which unfortunately caused collateral damage. In that case, feel free to restore those parts. Cheers. Firestar464 (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove the AfD notice. You removed sourced material. Why is that? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with this particular part, that you keep removing? "Back in Slovenia, Frelih was accused of bias in her reporting, the allegation she dismissed by arguing that pro-Ukrainian view of the conflict was "over represented in Western media". In 2015 the case against Frelih was reviewed by Journalists' Ethics Council of Slovenia. The council ruled in Frelih's favour confirming in their official statement that Frelih's news coverage did not violate journalists' code of ethics.^[1] Shortly after, Frelih's name and personal details appeared on the Myrotvorets website where she was called an "enemy of Ukraine". Slovenia's president Borut Pahor voiced concerns over journalists safety during his talks with ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko.^[2]" Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what is wrong with this, that's also being removed constantly:

Awards=[edit]

For her article on Belarus youth struggling under the leadership of Alexander Lukashenko, Frelih received an award from Belarusian opposition organisation Belarus in Focus. She was named the best speaker of the World Schools Debating Championship 1998, held in Bukarest, Romania.

References Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it wasn't intentional. It resulted from my reverts of your removals of AfD notices. Firestar464 (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: I didn't remove AfD notice. If it wasn't intentional, I will put this parts back. Let's see, if it stays this time. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you removed the notice again. For the last time, please. stop. Firestar464 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you from Ukraine? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No; does it matter at all? --Firestar464 (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

should the page be deleted? 46.208.254.153 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we're discussing right now. You are allowed to make arguments for or against deletion. Firestar464 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue in favor of deletion purely on the basis that the page creator appears extremely emotionally invested in this page which to me indicates

WP:COI. Much more detailed and includes details e.g. about subject's school than I would expect for a figure with such little notable coverage. However, it may merit a considerably shorter article if anyone is prepared to sift through mainstream Slovenian sources. Autumnotter (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This has devolved into accusations.

I noticed a pattern: removing sourced parts connected to Ukraine and parts that present journalist in question as objective. For example: removing parts about her being critical towards Putin etc, award from Belarus opposition for her article on belarus dictatorship... I sense an agenda - presenting journo in question as pro-Kremlin. Feel free to do it, but not "generally regarded as pro-kremlin" style.

Can you explain what is "heavily promotional"? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it seems heavily promotional to me too

WP:COI, I am reinstating edits that state the plain facts about accusations, while disregarding apparent attempts to deflect / defend subject from accusations of pro-Kremlin bias 46.208.254.153 (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I deny any COI and refuse to see any promotional material in the piece.

Back in Slovenia, Frelih was accused of bias in her reporting, the allegation she dismissed by arguing that pro-Ukrainian view of the conflict was "over represented in Western media". In 2015 the case against Frelih was reviewed by Journalists' Ethics Council of Slovenia. The council ruled in Frelih's favour confirming in their official statement that Frelih's news coverage did not violate journalists' code of ethics. Shortly after, Frelih's name and personal details appeared on the Myrotvorets website where she was called an "enemy of Ukraine". Slovenia's president Borut Pahor voiced concerns over journalists safety during his talks with ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko. Pro-Kremlin bias was established by whom? Any third party sources, please. You are clearly reinstating edits Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reinstating edits without proper sourcing. Remove the article, if it bothers you that much, but don't pretend it's about sourcing. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also sense WP:COI. Are you affiliated with Myrotvorets? Andrea Rocchelli, an Italian journalist murdered by the Ukrainian army in 2014 during the Donbas war, has been filed on the site. In Rocchelli's file, on whose photo the Myrotvorets Center has applied the red writing superimposed "Liquidated", there is a note stating that the photojournalist was "cooperating with pro-Russian terrorist organizations" and that he had violated the border of state of Ukraine to enter the territory occupied by "Russian terrorist gangs".

In 2018, Svetlana Alexievich, Nobel Prize in Literature, received threats from local nationalists and had to cancel a meeting with readers in the Green Theater of the Ukrainian city of Odessa when her name was added to a list of "enemies of Ukraine" by the Myrotvorets for "propagating interethnic discord and manipulating information important for society". Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In your zeal to show the subject of this article as pro-Kremlin you are using unsorced accusations and reinforcing factual errors, contrary to wikipedia own material:

Alexander Kofman was never self-proclaimed head of DPR, but the first foreign minister (EDIT FROM IP TO ADD: THAT YOU RECOGNISE HIM AS A MINISTER OF A UKRAINIAN REGION UNRECOGNISED BY THE REST OF THE WORLD IS PART OF THE PROBLEM): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_Kofman.png

RBTH was never financed by the Kremlin, but from the Russian state news agency RIA Novosti: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Beyond. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think where the IP is coming from here is your suspiciously heavy emotional investment in the subject and editing, which is a hallmark of COI editors. However, accusations are accusations, and they certainly aren't helping here. This should be dropped. Firestar464 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the IP is not coming directly from the Kremlin? I agree about dropping accusations and sincerely hope you will finally stop inserting pro-Kremlin wherever and whenever it suits you. I hope you'll also stop using poorly disguised threats.I don't mind being dropped from editing and I don't mind one of my wiki articles being deleted, but I sincerely hope you are not planning to publish my address on Myrotvorec site? Do I really have to start playing hide and seek? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrevocabile tempus (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Skupnost razom.si proti Poloni Frelih, Delo". 24 December 2015.
^ "Slovenski in ukrajinski predsednik o spornem črnem seznamu, na katerem so tudi slovenska imena". 24Ur. 11 July 2016.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input, less sniping please. Irrevocabile tempus I'm going to put a note on your talk, but please drop the accusations or you risk being blocked from this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG imo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while this person might be well-known
nor is an international reporter automatically notable because she took a photograph of a famous person, or who editorialized on a war. As with many a journalist, there are few reliable sources about her. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2022 (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.

[1]

[2]