Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slobodan Lučić

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2024 January 15.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Some of the coverage provided here has been convincingly rebutted. Editors are sharply divided over whether the rest is sufficient to constitute SIGCOV. I see both positions as grounded in policy, and so the numerical tilt comes into play, and so I am reading a consensus to delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan Lučić

[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)

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Has played in the semi-amateour league for whole career. No significant coverage in secondary sources. The main contributor to this article (Bobinho88) is probably the subject himself. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [1], [2], [3], [4], among mamny more Serbian sources. Clearly significant figure in Serbian football with ongoing career and 100 appearances in fully pro Serbian First League. Article needs imprvemento, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are Q&A interviews with little secondary independent commentary. The first two even start with the same introduction!
Now it is hard to imagine a player staying in the same club throughout his career, both in the top world leagues and in the amateur ones. However, there are incredible examples, and one of them comes from Dobanovci. Slobodan Lučić continues to perform for Budućnost, the club he joined when he was in kindergarten. Even according to the website Transfermarkt, he is officially the most loyal Serbian footballer , and he is in 13th place when all the players on the planet are taken into account!

That's barely three sentences on him, nowhere close to SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any news article that uses Transfermarkt as a reference is a red flag per WP:TRANSFERMARKT Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also ""Boy from the neighborhood" is the best pseudonym for the portrait of the experienced defender from Dobanov off the field. He jealously guards the sports record, which is seventh in the world, because he is loyal to his home club. That's why for some it's Totti, for others it's Maldinini, for others it's because his physical appearance irresistibly resembles Ibrahimovic, Zlatan's doppelgänger... captain of Budućnost" and "The guy born on February 23, 1988 passed all the younger categories of Buducnosti, and made his debut for the first team - with a goal... during Lučke's career, he played mostly along the right sideline, sometimes forward, sometimes back". Again, clearly significant figure in Serbian football with ongoing career and 100 appearances in fully pro Serbian First League not to mention onme of most long serving players in the world. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz: As JoelleJay has said, all of the linked sources are interviews and so don't qualify under WP:SIGCOV. You did mention "many more Serbian sources", however. Can you link to some of these, as they may qualify for notability under SIGCOV. For now, my !vote is a delete. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JML1148:, As I show above, the interivews have seconbdary coverage as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz: A paragraph or two at most, that are likely based upon the interview itself. Considering that WP:BLP states that we should be very firm about the use of high-quality sources, I believe that they don't qualify under WP:SIGCOV. Can you please provide the additional Serbian sources that you mentioned. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[5] [6] [7] [8] Bobinho88 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bobinho88 and Svartner, none of those sources qualify for notability. The first source is somewhat marginal, being three paragraphs, however it borders on WP:ROUTINE. Generally, biographies of living people need higher quality sources, so I would discount it. The second source is definitely WP:ROUTINE. The link for the third source doesn't work for me, and the fourth source is a promotional article about an interview. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE refers to sports scores. These aren't sports scores. Also, the third link you couldn't open - perhaps you are somewhere that's censoring Russian websites - you can also read it at archive.org. Not bad. Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Regardless of whether it is for a third division club, making 400 appearances for a professional team is something to be considered. From the sources presented by Das osmnezz and Bobinho88, there is WP:SIGCOV in Serbian. The sum of all factors makes WP:GNG acceptable, the article just needs improvements. Svartner (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Unfortunately, I don't see any improvements made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few sentences of background in interviews does not amount to SIGCOV.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Republika.rs (site of two of the sources above) is the digital edition of Srpski Telegraf, which is described as The tabloid is nationalist and pro-government in terms of its content. ... Despite its brief existence - the first issue came out in March 2016 - it became a champion in breaking ethical norms, according to the monitoring of the Serbian Press Council. by Media Ownership Monitor and definitely not fit for a BLP. The two other sources mentioned above are the FK Buducnost website and a trivial news item on Lucic's cheating attempt by "Football Burp", a website that describes itself as "New football jokes, own goals, videos, Fantasy Premier League tips, score predictions and match previews" that has no indication of being RS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; as noted above, none of the offered sources are SIGCOV because they are not in-depth and independent coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 22:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the references provided above, there's also [9]. Yes, it's an interview. Which is fine as an indication of notability; what it's poor for, is sourcing - but that's not what AFD is about. Nfitz (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the exact same Q&A interview discussed above, just reposted on the FK Buducnost website. And you know full well that content directly from the subject does not contribute to GNG, and that governing sports orgs are explicitly considered non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's from a press release or something, you may have a point; but please tell me what indicates that this has primary sourcing? Nfitz (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have written newspaper editions, large articles (Kurir and Sportski Zurnal) but I don't know how to attach them Bobinho88 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobinho88: Newspaper articles separate from anything already listed here? Could you tell us how in-depth is the newspaper coverage of Lucic? (how many sentences and/or paragraphs) Alternatively you could take pictures and email them to me; I'd be willing to take a look (though you might have to help translate some if we go that route). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it's close-ish to WP:GNG, but there isn't strong WP:SIGCOV that is WP:RELIABLE. Interviews marginally contribute. TLA (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 16:17, 15 January 2024 (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.