Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srdjan Djokovic

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. I see a consensus here to Keep this article as sources meet GNG standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srdjan Djokovic[edit]

[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)

I'm proposing deletion for the following two reasons:

Srdjan's coverage in sources (until the past 48 hours) is based on his interactions or comments on his son's tennis career. This is usually fleeting news coverage or part of longer biographies of Novak. See WP:INVALIDBIO
The recent event concerning Srdjan would fail WP:BLP1E if it wasn't for the inherited notability aspect. Again coverage is quite fleeting and shallow mainly focusing on the Russian invasion of Ukraine angle rather than the person of Srdjan.

This level of notability can be applied to almost all parents (even siblings or partners etc) of top 20 tennis players and in these cases we do not have stand alone articles for them - unless they have independent notability Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Serbia. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While he isn't my cup of tea, he's got coverage in the Washington Post [1], the NYT link above has at least 5 hits on his name, and all the other sources given, he's at GNG. So long as we keep the tone neutral, the article is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quite dislike the fellow, but his article has merit. We have sourcing to support what's written here, that's what's important. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator). Srdjan Djokovic meets WP:GNG due to the multiple reliable sources that each provide significant coverage. WP:BLP1E is of course relevant to consider, but does not apply, for the reasons explained at WP:NOTBLP1E i.e. he is notable for a few things, his support of his son, his appearance in Australia.

The statement about the Russian invasion of Ukraine is odd, as he has been notable for his statements in Australia about COVID-19 rules and most of the articles before recently have no mention of the war.

Arguing that someone is not notable on the basis of a relationship is only relevant if WP:GNG is not met. Consider Jamie Spears or any member of a royal family, they either are or are not notable on the basis of their independent notability. Should we delete Madonna because she is only notable for one thing (singing) or Diego Maradona because he was only notable or one thing (football)? Of course not, they both meet WP:GNG, just as this one does. I am happy that WP:INVALIDBIO is quoted, because what is actually says is that relatives are not notable...unless significant coverage can be found, which is exactly why this article should be kept. CT55555(talk) 03:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is 'significant' coverage, because of how 'significant' Novak Djokovic is. One of the greatest tennis players of all time. You are interpreting guidelines in order to fit your own narrative, for an article which you created with poor reasoning. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 03:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nom complains of "inherited notability". I am unaware of a policy, guideline or essay concerning "inherited notability". I AM aware of an essay concerning "arguments to avoid during AfD". However nobody is this AfD has made the argument for inherited notability. Further, that essay contains a great big warning at the top to not conflate content in an article with arguments made in an AfD. As such one of the main points made by the nom is based on a rules misunderstanding. -- GreenC 03:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concerning BLP1E .. that's hard to square with this source: Mathew, Melvin (2022-07-11). "How Novak Djokovic's Parents Shaped His Legendary Tennis Career?". Sportsmanor. .. note the date (2022) versus other sources from 2023. This source is about his parents, and also their son, you can never get away from the shadow of a famous parent (children and grandchildren of JFK) or famous children (mother of Elon Musk). "Independent" doesn't mean "exclusive" notability. -- GreenC 03:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm just going to copy over the comment I made from the previous talk page and list a few reasons. First of all, this article definitely does not meet notability guidelines. Just because he is the father of a notable person, therefore may appear in news stories (very sporadically, almost never) through affiliation, does not mean he meets those guidelines. Secondly, this article uses poor, unreliable sources to represent unfactual information (example, the source for his birthplace). Thirdly, this article was created on the day that he was mentioned in the news, and should be reviewed for slander, and possible implications of libel. This can easily be checked by comparing the date of creation, to one of the events referenced in the article. Lastly, he was never notable as a skier(not even regionally), which was used to implicate notability in a previous conversation with the article creator. There are no references to notable accolades that could warrant that distinction given. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1: "Just because he is the father of a notable person". Whoever said that is a reason to Keep? Your arguing a strawman. Sometimes fathers and sons are both notable. Point 2: according to you the following are unreliable sources: BBC, The Telegraph, CNN, ABC, CBC .. do we take that seriously? Point 3: The article doesn't contain "slander" and if it does you need to say what it is instead of making unsourced and vague accusations. Point 4: He's notable due to sources per GNG. -- GreenC 04:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- False, he's notable due to affiliation, therefore in sources. Exclusively, there would never even be a consideration. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Who said he's notable due to affiliation except for you, and that violates WP:INHERITED in "Arguments to Avoid during AfD" .. please avoid making that argument. -- GreenC 14:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CT55555. Sources in the article are reliable, in-depth, and have significant coverage about the subject, and passes WP:GNG. Tails Wx 04:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin, please consider if this diff represents canvassing. Tagging the editor for their awareness that I said this. Spirit Fox99 CT55555(talk) 04:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin, please consider if adding this discussion to Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration by CT5555 represents canvassing. Thank you Spirit Fox99 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the proposer that this level of notability could apply to many parents of famous personalities. This is more a plug for Red Bull Pizza than it is for a reliably notable person. What is here is pretty much already covered completely in the Novak Djokovic article and a stand-alone article seems trivial for Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll try researching if there are more reliable sources or even book sources out there. Tails Wx 05:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - Srdjan is spoken about in many books. The majority of them are biographies of Novak with a handful on other tennis topics but the content is still intrinsically linked to his son. This same is also true for tennis dads Robert Federer, Sebastián Nadal, Sam Sampras, John McEnroe Sr and even Roy Laver. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your research is moot. There is nothing that could possibly validate him being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article of his own. The only reason we are even having this conversation is due to his affiliation with someone notable. You and the creator are just clutching at straws at this point. Sad really. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spirit Fox99: There is nothing that could possibly validate him being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article of his own... Are you stating that there aren't any sources out there and can't be improved while the AfD discussion is ongoing? Tails Wx 13:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Novak Djokovic. All of his notability claims are linked back to his famous son. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge That is not an option being considered. What notability claims? He has no notability claims to begin with. He was already mentioned in his famous son's article as the father, which is all he is according to an encyclopedia, and rightly so. No more information is needed for him or the rest of the Djokovic family other than their affiliation. The events which transpired the same day this article was created (coincidence?) all say 'Oh my, Novak Djokovic's father took a picture with these fans carrying these items'. When looked at critically it is just an overblown, sideshow circus. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with strict guidelines, not a media rag or political platform. If it has become so, then it has lost all credibility. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable for being that "center-of-attention person that shows up when a certain other person plays tennis" I suppose. It is what it is. He's a character. You almost expect him to be there when his son plays now, it's part of the ambiance at the match. Oaktree b (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Spirit Fox99 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Hello Spirit Fox99. 1) You are not allow to vote twice. 2) Merging should be considered as an WP:ATD, when a suitable target exists. 3) Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:BLUDGEON. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand this correctly. I voted between the process of keep or delete, for which I voted delete. Now you have introduced a completely separate process (Merge or Oppose Merge) for which I am not entitled to a separate vote or opinion. This enforcement of manipulated guidelines is unjust to say the least. Oppression by irrational suppression. Got it. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Spirit Fox99. If you are willing to drop the hostile attitude, I would be pleased to help you understand this correctly. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also oppose a merge. Pretty much everything is already in the Novak Djokovic article plus merges are more for articles that have been here awhile. This was just created. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2023/01/26/who-novak-djokovics-father-srdjan-what-pro-putin-night-wolves/ and https://nz.news.yahoo.com/novak-djokovic-father-responds-after-australian-open-warning-220814341.html proves he does get coverage on his own. Dream Focus 09:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG. It's not as if he received coverage only because of the yesterday's incident – there's sustained coverage dating back to 2010:
- Trošelj, Slavko (December 25, 2010). "Đorđe je Novak na kvadrat". Politika Online (in Serbian).
- "Srđan Đoković: Nisam kandidat za predsednika TSS". Politika Online (in Serbian). December 10, 2010.
- "Srđan Đoković za B92: Novak će postati najbolji u istoriji". B92 (in Serbian). May 21, 2016. Retrieved January 27, 2023.
- "Kašika, viljuška, reket". Nedeljnik Vreme (in Serbian). February 2, 2011. Retrieved January 27, 2023.
- (a lot more can be found)

Granted, a lot of that coverage is because of his statements related to Novak, and several faux pas he committed in the way. Quote from my ref 4 Behavior and public statements of Đoković the elder did not bring him much sympathy with the Serbian public, as can be seen through numerous comments surrounding the news about elections in the national tennis organization. Now, how to sympathetically paint a picture about a man whose main source of coverage is being a loudmouth, is another question. No such user (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For a far more egregious case of a tennis player's father, see Damir Dokić. No such user (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting pov. If 90% of his "press coverage" is of the notorious variety, and that is the reason his is notable enough for a solo article, then the article's weight should be geared towards 90% negative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to be fair, PT Barnum was also a loud-mouth. Some people are just good at getting the media to notice them; I'm still uncertain why the Kardashians are famous, or Paris Hilton. They have that "something" that makes people write about them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's always tricky with "breaking news" articles, but I think the additional coverage means that WP:NBIO is now met. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seven people have argued for keep. Two to delete. Meanwhile an editor is insisting on not linking to this article from Novak Djokovic (see [[2]] while this AFD is ongoing. Considering WP:SNOW can we please wrap this up, I can't see this being deleted CT55555(talk) 01:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's 3 for delete including the initiator... hardly WP:SNOW but certainly very likely to keep. But we aren't in any hurry at Wikipedia and these things usually go at least a week. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Given the online references cited alone, the article seems fails WP:NOTINHERIT and WP:BLP1E. However, I will take WP:AGF to assume this article have passed WP:GNG, Iff the cited offline sources contain well-documented contents regarding Srdjan, though the book souces really have to WP:IC. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough significant and relavant sources to pass GNG. Timothytyy (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2023 (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.