Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Murić

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2014 July 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 02:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Murić

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

PROD contested by IP, no reason given. Original deletion rationale remains valid i.e. fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Note this article is also a direct copy and paste of my own sandbox... Giant Snowman 12:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This story has appeared several times in the last few months in Croatian mainstream sports press... Maybe this player really is a star in the making, and he does something notable soon, but until then, it's just yet another in a long line of escapades involving Zdravko Mamić - on its own it seems to be a violation of WP:BLP1E and WP:CBALL. It's just too soon to tell. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. – Michael (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet the GNG.[1] Mice never shop (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Player will be part of the 1st squad of Ajax and is likely to make his debut in the next season. Would be a shame to delete the valuable concent that has been made so far User:WR227 (talk) 0:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That's an invaled argument. Saying that the players will be part of the first team squad and make his debut next season violates WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia does not operate on that. – Michael (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly valid argument if it is almost certain, and that's verifiable. But it is? What does the media think? What has the coach said? Nfitz (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not almost certain. What happens if he tears his ACL during training? Uh oh, he's done for the season. So it's a perfectly INvalid. WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief. What if the Easter Bunny ends the world tomorrow. It's ALMOST certain ... how is there any damage to keeping the article for a few weeks, rather than wasting people's time with these absurd unnecessary and temporary deletions. Nfitz (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This player never making it as a professional is significantly more likely to happen... Giant Snowman 11:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possible. Note I wasn't saying that it is a valid argument if he is almost certain to play. I didn't say he is almost certain to play. I asked what was the media and coach thinking. It's immaterial however, given the article meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Any article can be undeleted once notability is real. Crystal balls are fine for creating articles, but once here at AfD, something more substantive aught to be expected. And I for one do not see it in this case. KDS4444^Talk 04:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG as per shopless mice. Nfitz (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are all the same news of mid-June. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, WP:BLP1E. Giant Snowman 18:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you can't use all the Google News search being recent as being proof it's BLP1E given that Google News only searches back a few weeks. There's other news sources from well before June. Such as [2] Nfitz (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE transfer speculation that we see dozens of every year. Young Player X linked to transfer to Big Club Y! Giant Snowman 11:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't normally see numbers lik thate. In particular though, you don't normally see multiple articles of that ilk over an extended period of time Nfitz (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. The keep vote above contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. Statements above that he will play are pure WP:CRYSTAL, other links above suggesting GNG seem to me to be WP:ROUTINE transfer talk. Agree with comments above that article can be restored once a (any!) notability guideline is satisfied. Fenix down (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2014 (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.