Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeljko Susa


 * 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Zeljko Susa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:NFOOTBALL. Article was previously deleted.  // Timothy ::  talk  06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - He meets WP:NFOOTBALL by playing two matches for Hajduk Split, which is in the Croatian Legue, which is in the list of fully pro leagues. As the criteria states that the player has to play in a competitive match between two teams in fully pro leagues, one of the matches was a Cup match against another team in the same league, Varteks Varaždin in 2001/02. See his hrnogomet.com Profile. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Das osmnezz, the player has played (and scored) in a professional league. Meets WP:NFOOTY. Bingo bro   (Chat)  08:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets NFOOTBALL as above; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 17:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I don't understand why User:TimothyBlue keeps nominating players that meet NFOOTBALL and claiming that they don't. If these are erroneous, why not withdraw the nominations? Nfitz (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * yes I've noticed a few where at best WP:BEFORE has not been complied with, and at worst there has been a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. If you can collate examples we could raise at ANI and seek a topic ban? GiantSnowman 15:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment and Reply: One thing I will change is not using WP:NFOOTBALL interchangably with WP:NSPORT.
 * To save some work, here are the three players I have nominated: Articles for deletion/Robbert Barendse, Articles for deletion/Miguel Gómez Palapa, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeljko Susa.
 * If someone wants to open a thread on ANI, fine but there is no conduct issue here, just a difference of opinion about notability guidelines. There won't be a topic ban because I will accept the consensus if I'm incorrectly applying notability guidelines and bans are preventative, not punitive. There may be a mild boomerang though based on the lack of AGF and using ANI as a threat to scare off an editor or as a red card to falsely thwart discussion (I used a soccer metaphor there, was it a good one?).
 * On the other side, if my interpretation is upheld at ANI, it will open up discussing deleting a number of non-notable stubs.
 * I don't believe Wikipedia should be a repository of non-notable stubs because they are presumed to be notable. Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary. It's an encyclopedia and these stubs provide no WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT.
 * I think how notability should be applied in these cases is a good conversation to have. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe I'm correct.
 * To address issues:
 * WP:BEFORE has been done. It has turned up no WP:RS to establish notability. I don't see anyone that has added a RS to indicate my BEFORE was faulty (perhaps they did and I haven't seen it since I last looked). See below regarding NFOOTBALL and as I stated above I should not have been using NFOOTBALL and NSPORT interchangeably.
 * The core question here is if a person meets WP:NFOOTBALL, does that mean there notability is automatically established and cannot be questioned based on the lack of RS? or I am interpreting WP:N, WP:SNG, and WP:NSPORT and presumption correctly and it's valid to bring up the question of notability here.
 * WP:N states "A topic is presumed to merit an article..." Presumed is defined in the link as "a rebuttable presumption ... is an assumption made by a court that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise". I am coming forward to contest the notability of these articles based on a lack of WP:RS showing notability.
 * From WP:N (WP:NRV) (a guideline that applies to all subjects) "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". The evidence (WP:RS) must show the individual is notable. I don't believe that evidence exists and the presumption, in this case, is incorrect.
 * Just because WP:NFOOTBALL says someone can be "presumed notable" does not guarantee they are notable, nor does it say that editors cannot question this presumption of notability. A presumption is an assumption that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it. WP:NFOOTBALL is not a trump card that automatically overrules all other guidelines and makes article notability immune from scrutiny.
 * From WP:SNG "a presumption is neither a guarantee that sources can be found" and therefore it is not a guarantee the topic is notable, "nor a mandate for a separate page." A separate page is not mandatory for a topic just because of a presumption.
 * "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria". "it is likely" does not mean there always are sufficient sources. It is also possible that sufficient sources do not exist to establish notability. Therefore if someone comes forward to question the presumption of notability, it can be discussed and the article deleted if the presumption is found to be wrong due to the lack of WP:RS establishing notability.
 * Per WP:NSPORT "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Even if an article meets WP:NFOOTBALL that does not mean it must be kept. If there are reasons, such as a lack of RS, then an article can be deleted.
 * I was thinking about writing an RFC to ask about clarifying that a presumption of notability can be questioned based on the lack of RS showing notability so that this is no longer a matter for debate. If the RFC is written (I'm not sure I want to be pummeled by the football team), this might be a good opening comment. I was also thinking about writing an RFC to ask about revising the exceedingly low standard set in WP:NFOOTBALL since I believe its standard is allowing too many non-notable articles to exist. Together these two RFCs might be a good starting point for removing a good number of non-notable articles.
 * ,, , , : I'd be interested if you have any comments, not on the delete discussion (I'm not canvassing), but on the notability thoughts above (other than why are you kicking a hornet's nest)? If anyone else has anyone that might provide good feedback, please ping them.  // Timothy ::  talk  18:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (,, I assumed you were watching, but decided to ping you just in case.   // Timothy ::  talk  19:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC))
 * , sorry, this particular AfD isn't something I want to get involved in. Ultimately, all the notability guidelines are not rules to be followed but an approximation what we have learned through experience; that if subjects that meet a certain criterion, it likely has received enough attention that an article can be written from reliable secondary sources and the subject is something we ought to have an article on. I don't think we should interpret guidelines as rules. Read the sources, consider them. An SNG should be the start of a discussion, not the end. I'm not a huge fan of "meets guideline; end of discussion". Vexations (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree it would be helpful to clarify globally just what "presume" means in this context. Lawyers sometimes distinguish between rebuttable and irrebuttable presumptions. Rebuttable presumptions, as their name suggests, can be rebutted by presenting evidence to defeat the presumption; irrebuttable presumptions can't. WP:NFOOTY states [a]ssociation football (soccer) figures are presumed notable if …. This seems ambiguous to me between rebuttable and irrebuttable. No thoughts on this nom, but agree it would help to clarify, generally, what "presumed" means in notability guidelines. I've been operating with the assumption that it means "rebuttable"—so presenting evidence of RS would still be necessary, even if the guideline applies—but I'm not a policy expert. (Your note above re: WP:N suggests that this is the appropriate interpretation, at least in some notability contexts.) Would defer to those who are. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The standard is having reliable, 3rd party sources. The football guidelines suggest the type of articles that will have such sources, but if such sources are not found when sought for, we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure why you mentioned me. I don't know anything about notability in football, and I've never worked on any football articles. When I was much younger, I loved sports and followed them closely. Those days are gone.
 * Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – as per multiple users above, meets WP:NFOOTY through appearances for Hajduk Split. Needs improving, not deleting. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:22, 7 August 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.