Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/René Marić


 * 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) buidhe 16:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

René Marić

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NFOOTY, and probably WP:GNG as most of the sources available are trivial mentions. Some talk about him, but I don't think it's enough to warrant an article. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There's obviously not been a very deep analysis the sources in the article... This article from The Guardian is clearly not a "trivial mention" of Maric. Neither is this German paper from 2020 or this extensive interview from 2017. Furthermore there are other sources I was planning to add to the article, such as this profile in a French website, this other extensive profile of Maric both as a blogger and a coach in Italian, or this German paper on his political opinions. With all this extensive coverage in several languages with reliable secondary sources, I definitely think that this article reaches WP:GNG. --Coco (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Three of the six sources mention him at a trivial level. The other three don't, and those are fine. But my point isn't the absence of non-trivial sources, rather the fact that they aren't enough. Maybe I've been a bit premature with the nomination, I must admit, but the article in the current state isn't enough. I'm sure that there are a lot more sources around: if you can considerably expand the article into something more substantial (beginning with his blogging career, and then onto his managerial career), then we should be fine. There are really only two phrases in the whole article solely about the person in question, 70% is just about Salzburg's season. The article has potential, but in its current state it can't be accepted. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 00:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes the article is not yet at its full potential yet, but at is not an argument for suppression, the sources are already enough to reach the GNG. The presence of several additional sources with trivial mentions is not an argument either. I understand this article needs improvement (I just created it and I was planning on doing so when I have the time), but proposing it for deletion is clearly not a good way of encouraging that. --Coco (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep it doesn't matter if some, or most of the sources available are trivial mentions. What matters are some are significant. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here about how GNG works. Nfitz (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree that there's a fundamental mis-understanding about GNG here. Numerous minor sources do not matter if there are significant sources (which there are). GiantSnowman 08:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok it's very clear that my nomination was wrong, and I apologize. could you help me out better understand the GNG? I thought that the number of non-trivial sources was important, but apparently not. Is one single non-trivial publication by an independent reliable source all that is needed to pass GNG? Or am I missing something? <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 14:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage" - helpfully what that means is fact specific to each case, but one very in depth source might be enough, or a few detailed pieces in totality. The number of insignificant/routine pieces is irrelevant. GiantSnowman 15:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.