Talk:Srdjan Djokovic

Notability
I'm struggling to see how this article meets notability guidelines and seems to be an WP:INVALIDBIO per the first bullet point. Before this month, Srdjan has only had intermittent news coverage all of which is related to statements or actions he has made about Novak's tennis. Anything other than news coverage, everything is entirely related to Novak and in biographies of him. Didn't want to take this straight to AfD as there may be sources I can't find. I suppose I would support a merge in Novak's bio and leave this as a redirect. Tagging the article's creator: @CT55555 for comment. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Until this month, he probably didn't meet WP:GNG, and I think that since today, he clearly does. There are multiple articles about him where he is the primary focus and that include WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage. Naturally, I assessed this before starting the article. I am confident that this article will survive WP:AFD.
 * I think WP:INVALIDBIO is relevant, but what that guidance states is that being a relative of someone famous is not a reason to have an article. Of course, I agree. The reason to have an article is his notability (i.e. WP:GNG) which he meets. i.e. we don't exclude everyone who is famous for being a relative, if they independently meet GNG. Take for example Prince William. He's only famous because of who his father is, but he is also independently notable. Jamie Spears is 100% only notable because of who his daughter is, but he is also notable in his own right. WP:INVALIDBIO doesn't exclude relatives, it excludes relatives if the only claim to notability is the relationship without WP:GNG coverage themselves. I spend enough time at AFD to feel like I have a clear idea how it would go, I have no concern if you want to take it to AFD. CT55555  (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, this article definitely does not meet notability guidelines. Just because he is the father of a notable person does not mean he meets those guidelines. Secondly, this article uses poor, unreliable sources to represent unfactual information. 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 article should be removed at once. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:LEGAL and if you think it should be deleted, take it to WP:AFD rather than deleting half the content on the basis of WP:N. CT55555 (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - just attempting a local solution to avoid the drawn out bureaucracy and discussion of AfD. The Prince Wiliam argument is a little silly though - might as well argue that Jesus is only notable because of his dad haha. I think the stuff in the news today largely comes down to WP:SINGLEEVENT without the inherited notability. Let's throw this to the community to hash out seeing as someone else seems to have taken issue as well. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E is the relevant guideline for biographies of living people. And if you think that might apply, please read WP:NOTBLP1E which explains clearly why it does not apply. CT55555 (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link! I find it impossible to navigate around the policy and guidelines pages! Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have my sympathy, there is a labyrinth of policies, guidelines and ones that appear to contradict. For what it's worth, I am very familiar with the BLP-suite of policies/guidelines and reflected on them before starting this one. Of course, opinions may differ, despite my confidence. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I repeat again, because I was ignored on sll the valid points that I have made. First of all, this article definitely does not meet notability guidelines. Just because he is the father of a notable person does not mean he meets those guidelines. Secondly, this article uses poor, unreliable sources to represent unfactual information. 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 article should be removed at once. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Spirit Fox99 - I've now nominated the article at Articles for deletion/Srdjan Djokovic. You can voice your opinion there. You seem quite passionate about this topic which I appreciate but maybe take some timeout to collect your thoughts before participating. Cooler heads usually do better in discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I would also like the intentions of the user who created this article to be investigated thoroughly by other members of the community with an objective, neutral perspective. Considering the day it was created, and the majority of sources used deriving from a single news event, there should be questions of possible bias, slander, and libel involved. As well some of the most important information, such as birthplace, uses an extremely unreliable source. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:ANI is the place to raise any concerns about my intentions. Also, you should read WP:AGF. CT55555 (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Restored deleted content
With this diff, I restored the deleted information. The info was the subject of the article comparing his son's detention to the crucification of Jesus.

This fact was noted here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/07/novak-djokovic-lured-to-australia-to-be-humiliated-says-serbia And the subject of reporting here: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/video/2022/jan/06/theyre-trying-to-crucify-him-djokovics-father-compares-him-to-jesus-video

So I consider the justification to delete as it being a "tidbit" difficult to accept, it made news.

Staring this convo in case people's views differ...? (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)