Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandar Lazarevic

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. ✗plicit 00:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Lazarevic

[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)

This thing is so promotional we need to start over. This would have been deleted in 2013 if the PROD tag wasn't removed. Also, ALL the sources portray the person in question in considerable good standing. Sounds like a resume posted on WP. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 23:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 23:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Inadequate sourcing as it is unreliable and not independent. LinkedIn account? Very much reads like a resume, WP:ADMASQ. Deletion seems premature but I would see the merit there as well. NiklausGerard (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftification is only a reasonable choice when there is some expectation that someone will improve it and resubmit it as an article. For an article that is still in the state it is after a 2007 creation, I don't think that expectation is reasonable. If you want to do that yourself, do it now. If you think someone else will do it, who? Without that expectation, it is just a hypocritical way of saying "delete six months from now". If you think it should be deleted, why not now, and why not say so explicitly? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was under the impression that deletion was meant to be a last-resort and to allow opportunity for an article to be improved upon. I hadn’t considered the timeline as the indication that I should have. You are correct. NiklausGerard (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, this seems like a notable subject with several papers that have 1000+ citations (even though in a *very* high citation field) and further achievements, but the current article is not usable. --hroest 17:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revert The article back to this version from January 2021 [1] which is much better written. The subject appears to be notable and passes WP:NPROF, and most of the over the top promotional cruft has been recently added. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just did that! Thanks! Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 03:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCV. Independently of the promotional-tone issue (which was easily resolved), doesn't look like there's any independent source about this guy, and the whole of the content of the article is pretty much like a verbose CV. An average joe with an average job, who seems too WP:ROTM to warrant an article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:39, 17 April 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.