Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JadranSport


 * 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

JadranSport

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Despite existing here for 14 years, I actually believe that this fails all relevant guidelines. Please hear me out. It is a thinly veiled advert at best and the article that we see currently was written by an WP:SPA with clear connections to JadranSport. As per WP:INHERENTWEB ''even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little attention from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type is commonly notable or merely because it exists''. There is a potential 'claim' to notability through Walter Zenga but, as per WP:INHERITWEB, ''Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable.''

Sources:


 * - passing mention
 * - passing mention
 * - listed as a source on a football story
 * - unreliable (blog)

The entire article is sourced only to Jadran's website. It is also full of WP:OR and is promotional from start to finish. Spiderone 19:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  19:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - distinct lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. GiantSnowman 20:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The article needs major cleanup, but the news site was influential in its day and was used as a source by major Croatian newspapers back when it was operating:   and even other team's web sites: . We even cite it over at our fully professional leagues list! However I can't find any articles on the internet directly discussing the periodical, and I don't know how to do a search from 2004. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Per sources presented by SportingFlyer. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can a website be notable simply because it is cited as a source by others even if it fails GNG? Spiderone  16:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have a definitive answer, but I tend to extend lenience in that regard towards news outlets, since news outlets seldom write about other news outlets (unless they get into some kind of trouble). If you have some time to spare, discussion in Articles for deletion/Novi magazin offers some food for thought. Personally, I would weigh in the "citation count" in determining whether to keep an article (but I really have no opinion on this one). No such user (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There is not enough significant news coverage about this publication to establish why it is notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not have enough sources. Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2020 (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.