Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danijel Simic

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danijel Simic[edit]

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

Notable but zero reference on a new BLP article. scope_creep (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Delete - Article has near-zero sources in English (or any language other than Serbian), meaning that corrections probably need to be made by the article creator. I would prefer incubation or moving to draft space. However, since the same text is already at Football player11, deletion is acceptable given lack of sources to establish notability. --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 06:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC) (So what is the specific reason for the AfD? Is it WP:DEL7 (attempts at sourcing failed), or are you asserting WP:DEL8 (lack of notability)? And is the problem to such an extent that it cannot be solved by any alternatives to deletion? Especially given that it's a new article, I'm not sure deletion is the best call here (especially since, from what I understood, you are not contesting the topic's notability). --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 20:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. We have WP:BLPPROD for cases like this. --Michig (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know. I put it into Afd accidentally. I initially meant that to put into BLP-Prod, but the article is here now. Yes he is probably notable, but that is beside the point. The article has NO sources, therefore for an BLP means BLP-Prod. I can't understand why folk can't grasp this simple assertion. I don't know anything about football. scope_creep (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my question felt aggressive somehow, that was not my intention. As a new editor, I am still learning about the ins and outs. Now I've also learned about BLPPROD, so I've learned something new as well. --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 06:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - the deletion argument is that the player is notable? Then add some references, and close the AFD. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. @Nfitz: why are you claiming he is notable when there are no reliable sources verifying that?! Giant Snowman 19:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was taking the nomination statement that he is notable, at face-value. Are you saying the nominator is wrong? This has to be the most bizarre nomination I've seen. Nfitz (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league, at least not as far as I can see. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That possibly is why there is no references. scope_creep (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @(User_talk:Talk2chun), I didn't think it was aggressive in the least. scope_creep (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2017 (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.