Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nedim Malicbegovic (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 Snow delete  -- GB fan 14:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Nedim Malicbegovic
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person. Adam9007 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete!--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This article was deleted yesterday too, no need to do an AfD. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment WikiOriginal-9, the AFD was started before I speedied it, and Adam9007 challenged the SD on the basis that there was a claim of notability, so I've restarted the AFD. [[User:Jimfbleak|Jimfbleak]] - talk to me?  16:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was a claim of notability; I said I thought there may be a claim of significance (a lower standard than notability according to the policies/guidelines/essays), which is what A7 is about unless I've seriously misinterpreted it as many others believe? Adam9007 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely unacceptable article, about a 17 year old who plays online games. Should be removed from the encyclopedia ASAP. The last time it was listed at AfD it was A7ed within the hour, and IMO it should be A7ed again. I would suggest G4, but G4 probably doesn't apply - because the previous deletion, although it occurred during a community discussion, was not the RESULT of a community discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Followup: I see that this article was restored and the AfD reopened because the nominator, User:Adam9007, believes the article does not qualify for A7 because it has a claim of significance. According to Adam, the subject "claimed to be a top player in a notable online game". What the article actually says is that the subject is "one the best DotA2 players" - without any evidence or any specifics, just the subjective claim that he is one of the best. That is absolutely not a "credible claim of significance". We are all in deep trouble if we can't apply A7 to vague claims like this. Suppose I write an article about myself, claiming that I am pretty well known in my town - must that article go through a full week of discussion before it can be rightfully removed? I still say this article should be A7ed immediately. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, I agree, but I didn't think that I could ignore a good faith request from Adam9007 when there had been no comments. I think it's obvious that the article is doomed, and I have no problem with an early closure, although I don't think I should wield the axe again myself Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely understand, Jim. I am not speedying it myself for the same reason; I am "involved" because I am one of the people who has been talking to Adam9007 about how to interpret A7. But if some uninvolved admin wants to A7 it again, or simply snow-close the AfD, I would support them. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete because there is no demonstration of our notability guidelines being met. However, I'd like to put in a word for Adam who would be right to remove an A7 CSD if he genuinely believed there was an indication of importance or significance. I think the advice he has been given on his talk page is good but it should be regarded as advice, not instruction. Administrators (and old-timers like me) get things wrong sometimes. Some administrators do not understand that WP:CSD is not a notability criterion and really far too many do not understand that WP:CSD only applies to "substantially identical" articles or versions. For me, ill-judged notability AFD nominations are generally a worse problem than CSD removals. Thincat (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note about G4: This version is completely identical to the previously deleted version. The reason G4 does not apply here is that the previous version was deleted without a community discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I should have made it clear I was not referring to a potential G4 in this case. I see G4 CSDs overturned at DRV, generally after having been deleted by particular admins, and I wonder how many wrongful ones never get appealed. Anyway, thank you for helping folks rather than merely adding templates! Thincat (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2015 (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.