Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Visevic (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Visevic
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Satisfies WP:NFOOTY (Melbourne Victory vs Adelaide United in 2005 Australian Club World Championship Qualifying Tournament), as identified in article. Significant coverage sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG demonstrated in existing article references. Macosal (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances (and it's debatable he even does that) is insufficient when GNG is failed, as is the case here. If significant, detailed sources beyond routine match reports and transfer news are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I am on the fence here, if there was a little more depth in the article I might say weak keep. At the moment, it feels rather weak towards GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep seems to pass GNG, even if NFOOTY argument is weak.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Whoo, this could go either way. The Večernji List article clearly qualifies for GNG, but I'm not seeing anything else which would clearly put him over the line. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm seeing arguments to 8ndicate one article of significance, relisting to give other editors a chance to opine, but not seeing strength of arguments here sufficient for anything other than delete at the moment.
 * Delete. I'm in agreement with Govvy, GiantSnowman, and SF here -- one possibly SIGCOV ref is not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not sure there is appetite for wider discussion given low participation to date but a Nfitz says there are sources that could potentially be sufficient. Current consensus as an admin who can close such a debate is that this is no consensus but given the recent specific addition of sources to the article no harm in one more week to try to get something more concrete
 * Keep Looking at coverage, it's hard to ignore over 130 articles referenced in Proquest and dozens in Gale, over many years which while mainly match reports, does contain some more borderline GNG references. I've added some more references in both Croatian and English. Nfitz (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is the entirety of Visevic's coverage in the one "borderline GNG" article added: Daniel Višević has already completed a two-week training cycle under the tutelage of Dinamo experts in Maksimir, while Mate Dugandžić will head to Croatia when he solves his last obligations at the sports institute in Victoria, where Višević recently graduated. If that is what NFOOTY editors consider "almost SIGCOV" then the project is even more egregiously divorced from the notability guidelines than I thought. JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing the spirit of the NFOOTBALL guideline, and since the coverage of his proceedings in amateur soccer fails to meet the bar of non-trivial coverage. Geschichte (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - the article is largely a synthesis of passing mentions but there is just about enough for a GNG pass, in my view (from the articles that I could access) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep A one-minute appearance as a substitute in 4th division match is enough to pass WP:NFOOTY (but this is not the place to debate that). And judged against that standard, this BLP meets the requirements. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - And what match would that be? 4th division is not pro in Australia. Simione001 (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Melbourne vs Adelaide, 2005 Australian Club World Championship Qualifying Tournament. Macosal (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Spiderone assessment of the available sources. Alvaldi (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.