Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatjana Đekanović


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Clearly a WP:SNOWBALL closure. I see no reason to continue this discussion further. (non-admin closure) Scorpions1325 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Tatjana Đekanović

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

not notable Atakhanli (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Atakhanli (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Bosnia and Herzegovina.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  11:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Question: Has a Bosnian speaker conducted a BEFORE search for sources (I'm not seeing one on the talk page)? If not this nomination is premature, you can't make a good faith declaration that it isn't notable unless BEFORE has been conducted. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: looking at the other language Wikis which cover her has suggested a couple more sources, which with the help of Google translate have allowed expansion of the article. Pam  D  17:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG with expansion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep following the work done by and  in expanding and sourcing this article, which has shown notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the coverage which has been added to the page is enough to get us over the GNG line. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ditto what stated. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY/WP:BEFORE. The coverage already in the article at the time of nomination did not demonstrate notability, but that has never been the correct standard to apply. Now we have not only the same notability we had before (because notability is not a function of the current state of the article) but a clear demonstration of that notability within our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Obviously notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability within the article is clearly stated.Kaybeesquared (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability is demonstrated by existing sources. Rublamb (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: per all forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2023 (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.