Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Jovanovic

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 . Sourcing is of insufficient depth Star Mississippi 19:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Jovanovic[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draftification without any improvement. Not a single in-depth reference from an independent, secondary, reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in sources such as this and this, both from a very quick Google search, nominator has clearly failed to comply with BEFORE, again. Giant Snowman 15:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. 58.169.135.250 (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - of the above two sources provided, the first is not an independent source, and the second is a blogpost.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GiantSnowman. Young player with ongoing career in fully pro A-League Men whic receives lots of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Of the above sources, one is a primary source from the Australian Professional Leagues Company and the other is from a fan blog that "anyone can contribute to" per their own site. Alvaldi (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources that exist are reliable. Improve the page, don't delete it. Milkk7 (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Milkk7 While sources exists, they are either not independent or reliable. A source from a league where the subject is playing is not independent from him as the league has direct interest in to promote its teams and players. And a fan blog is not a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED. Per WP:NSPORT, athletes must pass the general notability guideline and to pass GNG the subject must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As a mere existence of sources does not prove notability and the subject currently fails GNG, can you explain why the page should be kept? Alvaldi (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Hack (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While numerically in the majority, the "keep" !votes fail to convince. It would be good if two sources could be found that are unequivocally reliable, independent, and in-depth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other than first-person or sources related to his club, there is no extensive coverage in third-party sources we can use. He might be notable, but we need sourcing about the person to keep the article. Please review what we consider RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG as top level pro player. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Seacactus 13 Being a top level pro player is curiously absent from the GNG requirement of subjects having to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Can you elaborate on how being a top level pro player without any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject passes a guideline that requires exactly that? Alvaldi (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources are independent. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Player stats >> 1. "Player statistics for Luka Jovanovic - GameDay". My gameday. 7 October 2022.
Routine sports news >> 2. ^ "Reds promote promising duo to senior mens squad". Adelaide United. 5 July 2022.
Game news, nothing about subject >> 3. ^ "Western United FC vs Adelaide United FC". KEEPUP. 6 November 2022.
Awards show, played in list, nothing SIGCOV >> 4. ^ "Celebration of Football 2022 The Award Winners". Football SA. 10 October 2022.
Routine game news, intervew >> 5. ^ "DREAM-COME-TRUE FOR JOVANOVIĆ WITH MAIDEN GOAL". Adelaide United. 11 March 2023.
Routine sports news >> 6. ^ "Goodwin, Irankunda propel Adelaide past Jets in ALM". The West Australian. 11 March 2023.
Routine game news, interview >> 7. ^ "The Wanderers star mentoring an Adelaide young gun who's also eligible to represent a European giant". KEEPUP. 21 April 2023.

BEFORE showed stats and interviews, but nothing that meets IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 13:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please do a source eval of how your most recent article Serhii Korovayny meets the standards above that you apply to others articles? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz WP:OTHERSTUFF. You are more than welcome to take that article to AfD if you believe it fails GNG but discussion about it does not belong here. Alvaldi (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.