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. Nobody really argues to keep this and as has been pointed out, if at some point our inclusion requirements are met, the article can easily be undeleted, whereas a draft could linger for a long time, even if our criteria are never met. Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar Stojsavljevic[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)

PROD contested by article creator. Player fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (as he has not played in a fully-professional league. Being signed to a club in one is insufficient; many players never make the first team and fade in to non-league obscurity. Assuming this guy will play is WP:CRYSTAL. If he does then the article can be easily restored at that point. No point DRAFTifying as, as the PROD contester said, there is nothing else to add at this stage of his career. Giant Snowman 08:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft I was looking through the citations, I don't see enough for me to pass WP:GNG, feels way too WP:LOCAL, WP:ROUTINE. I think it's only fair to put the article in draft space for now, and see if the player makes his debut the first month or not, as it's a decent enough start on the article. Govvy (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: but there is no point DRAFTifying because, as the auricle creator/PROD remover admits, "this represents the most comprehensive documentation on this now-professional player's career to date". There is nothing to add/improve until he makes his debut, and then the article can just be restored. Giant Snowman 10:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The player currently fails WP:NFOOTBALL, having never played in a fully professional league or a senior international fixture, and I don't believe there's enough coverage beyond routine transfer info to meet WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTAL coverage is wP:ROUTINE. ClubOranje^T 12:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft The article is not worth deleting, as the season begins in two months and it would waste user time recreating an article that has been previously deleted, despite being sufficiently high quality and independently referenced. Lower league professional football on wikipedia needs more wide coverage and deleting this article will only dilute the coverage. However I recognise it may be lacking in detail relating to his early career and DRAFTing would allow other users to research this more closely, in time for when the player makes his debut.
Regarding the already sourced material however I feel the article meets WP:GNG because
1. There is significant coverage of the subject in referenced sources relating to his match performances for Woking and his recent signing with Newport, both of which were noteworthy events in local and national football and news sites, newspapers, and blogs.
2. The sources and information are reliable and are of a secondary nature. There is reliable and reputable sources discussing the subject in the aforementioned news sites and blogs and do not rely too heavily on information sourced from the subject or his associations.
3. There are sufficient quality independent sources discussing the subject, as above, in The Non League Football Paper, London News Online, Pitchero, getsurrey, and the South Wales Argus. These sources cover regions of large populations and readership figures are large, meaning that the information is of importance and relevance to a large number of wikipedia visitors interested in sports, Newport County AFC, South Wales culture, and the UK football industry more widely.
Llemiles (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft He fails WP:NFOOTY but could be notable very soon. There's an argument for WP:GNG here if you look at sources not in the source-bombed article (remove all the tweets!), but National League players don't get the benefit of the doubt. SportingFlyer T·C 04:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this article is DRAFTed (and again, there is no point and the creator admits there is nothing to add/improve on until he makes his debut) then I ask it's please merged with my earlier sandbox at User:GiantSnowman/Lazar Stojsavljevic. GiantSnowman 07:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: No need for that, surely? If there's anything in your sandbox stub that isn't in this article already, wouldn't it be simpler if you just added it to the draft by normal editing, if it is drafted? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - History merge is standard for a case like this where there is no parallel history. What would you do if I had created my draft at Draft:Lazar Stojsavljevic? GiantSnowman 09:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - History merge certainly isn't standard practice. If the creator of this article had copied your sandbox, then that would need a histmerge to preserve the attribution. But otherwise, if I have a sandbox draft and someone else creates an article in mainspace, I look at my content, and if there's nothing worth adding to the new article I blank my sandbox draft. If there is something worth adding I add it, by normal editing. I'm guessing that's what most editors do. As to a draft already in draftspace when a mainspace article was created and then draftified, I'm guessing they would need merging. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. I will happily restore on request if/when he passes it. Number 5 7 09:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft The article is reasonable as a start but is in need of expansion upon the player making his start, so I would recommend more additions to the player's earlier career and his season debut when it happens, as said above he is a first team signing Gwrandewch (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as we'll surely be recreating this when the Football League kicks off in a few weeks. No prejudice against deletion if somehow he doesn't stay with the squad. Nfitz (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. I've lost count of the numbers of drafts I've had to delete for players who never made it... Giant Snowman 07:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't crystal. This is a 21-year old defender who has signed for a 4th level club just before the season starts, and who was playing at the 5th level two years ago. Newport isn't signing such players for academies and not to play. As such this is something that is almost certain to take place very shortly. Looking at (arguably GNG) other sources the manager is looking for him to be part of the squad. To be honest, I don't see the point of starting deletion discussions on articles like this, rather than applying WP:NORUSH and seeing what the line-up looks like. Nfitz (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is. I created drafts on Callum Gunner and Tom Clare after they signed for Bradford City and were destined to play for the first-team; both have now been released without ever playing (or, IIRC, even making the subs bench) and will inevitably play non-league. I created a draft on James Finnerty after he signed for Rochdale; he lasted six months (making one first team appearance, and not enough to meet NFOOTBALL) before returning to semi-pro in Ireland. DO you want more examples of the many, many youth players who never played for a club, even in the English 4th division? And no, GNG is not met, that is not an argument anybody else has put forward before (and for a good reason). Giant Snowman 13:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a 3rd-level team signing teenagers clearly destined for the academy with no previous professional experience, to Newport signing 21-year olds with two years already under their belt, just before the season starts. Draft-space is the appropriate place for an article like this with at least 3 active editors, rather than everyone having articles in their own sandbox. I didn't claim GNG was met. Nfitz (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The creator admits there is nothing to add, and nobody has edited/improved the article since it was nominated. What more is there to say until (if/when) he makes his big debut? Giant Snowman 15:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giantsnowman. That's not accurate, as per my earlier comments, I do feel there is more to add to the article. I agree with Nfitz, this is a case of WP:NORUSH. Newport have a small squad and the player has repeatedly been referred to as a first team signing, the season for which is now less than 6 weeks away. Much of this policy is relatively new to me as a newer user, but I have noted the comments above for future articles. In this instance a lighter touch is more justified. Llemiles (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except you said that "There is very little reliable documentation on the player's career on other websites, and as such this represents the most comprehensive documentation on this now-professional player's career to date" (my emphasis). Giant Snowman 09:48, 27 June 2019 (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.