Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marin Aničić

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 15:12, 31 January 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. Most of the discussion involved whether NFOOTY was met, however, towards the end of the discussion sourcing was produced to establish notability under the GNG. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Aničić

[edit]
Marin Aničić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Previous concern is unknown as the deletion log simply says: WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection. In any case, Aničić has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that Kazakhstan Premier League is fully pro is not supported by reliable sources. (See WP:FPL). Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the reglamet of the League: 2015 Reglament of the Championship of Kazakhstan among clubs of a Premier League
  • 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 to satisfy GNG. Wikimandia and ChelseaFunNumberOne's comments are erroneous, there is no consensus that any league in Kazakhastan is fully professional. The "pro" element of a UEFA coaching license has no bearing on the level of professionalism of the players in a league, it is merely a grade of coaching badge. Being a member of UEFA has no bearing on the level of professionalism in a country, Andorra and Gibraltar are members of UEFA, but no one is suggesting this makes them fully professional. If there are specific elements of the document that indicate full professionalism for any level of football in Kazakhstan, can you please present them explicitly with translation? Fenix down (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fenix down and Sir Sputnik: Can you please define "fully pro"? I am not an expert in this area and I'm confused. What exactly makes the Kazakhstan Premier League not meet "fully pro" criteria? I would understand if it was a B league but it's the top tier league in KAZ. The essay WP:FPL has an incomplete list of leagues and has no criteria whatsoever. Thank you. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have any criteria because each league requires specific sourcing to indicate a fully pro status. Essentially, you have to show sources that support the league as having more than just professional elements. All the clubs have to be professional to the point that they are their players sole employer. It doesn't have to be from the FA or league itself. This source, for example, is a news report that shows the English football league to be fully pro. Fenix down (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I need to find an article that states that the players in the Kaz Premier League don't have other jobs? Or that the one guy with another job is indeed, the one guy who has another job? LOL. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well not exactly, but you see that it isn't the sort of things that can have rigid criteria. If you think you have sources that indicate full professionalism, then please do present them here. Each league is judged on the strength of the sources presented and consensus needs to be achieved in order for a league to be considered fully pro. It's not a perfect way of doing things, but at least it means there is a level of agreement. Fenix down (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really weak situation - if you are going to decide notability based on this one criteria (playing in fully professional league) this should be something that has a clear definition. I don't understand how whether something as specific as "professional" or not "isn't the sort of things that can have rigid criteria." Why isn't there a definite list of full professional leagues in the world's most popular sport? The Kazakhstan Premier League obviously has tons of sources, its current season (2015 Kazakhstan Premier League) was well sourced. I'm not trying to be difficult but I'm very surprised at this situation. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether articles on the league are well sourced in general, what matters is can you find a reliable source that indicates a fully professional status for a given competition. The reason there isn't a clearly defined list of criteria is that it's not necessary. As I showed with the link above, sources indicating a fully professional state can be found anywhere and do not necessarily conform to a given type.
Now this isn't perfect, but I think it is a very good way of judging things. Rather than having any individual set of criteria, each league is judged on it's merits and clear consensus among the community must be reached before addition on the FPL list. The notion of consensus is fundamental to enWiki. I'm sorry if it seems vague to you but not everything is clear cut when it comes to consensus and the FPL rule has been in place for about seven years now and has worked pretty well, at least well enough to the point that no one has come up with an alternative that has been deemed preferable.
To be honest though, the notion of FPL is fundamentally moot. GNG is what really counts. If a player is really that notable, then they should be able to satisfy GNG regardless of what league they play in. Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think he has basic sufficient coverage to meet GNG. His Russian article is more fleshed out. However, I am really stumped as to why the Kazakhstan Premier League would not be considered a fully pro league. The actual name of the league in Russian/Kazakh is, literally, "Professional Football League." They have a solid international roster, plenty of coverage, the president of their country attends the top matches etc. It doesn't make sense that they're a league of part-timers or low level. Their "minor league" or farm teams come from the Kazakhstan First Division. As KAZ is now part of UEFA, they are in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League. Marin Anichich plays for FC Astana (and definitely plays, he scored in the championship btw to help FC Astana win the KAZ SuperCup [1]. FC Astana (and other KAZ Premier League clubs) are listed in List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries#Kazakhstan. All evidence points to them being a fully professional league. What evidence is there to indicate they are not fully professional? —МандичкаYO 😜 21:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RE "His Russian article is more fleshed out" most of the Russian article is about what happened in the Summer of 2010: In June, Anicic signed a contract with FC Metalurh Donetsk (a club that qualifies under WP:FPL) and actually played one test match against Arapongas Esporte Clube, but left the team in July (before the next season started), and went back to Mostar. Kraxler (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of this confirms full professionalism. The name is entirely irrelevant since a league is free to call itself professional without this actually being the case. As a corollary example of this is the French fourth division, which has a fair degree professionalism despite the league being called the Championat de France Amateur. Likewise, playing in the UEFA club competitions is no guarantee of full professionalism as there are any number of confirmed semi-pro leagues, and even one amateur one that feed those competitions. While there is every indication that the league is professional to some extent, there are still no reliable sources that confirm that the league is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Sputnik: As I've stated, you have not given me any real criteria to find such a reference. And as I stated below, the "reliable sources" appear to simply use the word professional. Please provide some actual criteria beyond "it works well because no criteria is needed." —МандичкаYO 😜 15:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree Fenix down's statement that there is no criteria. While its not explicitly stated it has been generally accepted that a league in which all footballers are payed a living wage and do not require a secondary source of income is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That list states it is incomplete and, most absurdly, there is no criteria whatsoever listed. The first two references I checked out simply used the word professional. Please tell me how those leagues made the list and I will find that for the Kazakhstan Premier League aka Kazakhstan Professional League. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This directly contradicts WP:NSPORT. The Bosnian top flight is confirmed as not fully pro (see WP:FPL) and as stated above the status of the Kazakh League remains unconfirmed. The guideline also explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notability: Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but according to this, "the rules are not hard and fast. GNG is fluid by definition and trumps NSPORT". Kraxler (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but there's no indication that WP:GNG is met either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, you have said it before, and repeating it many times will not make any difference. Kraxler (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um...what? Those comments where the first time I cited WP:GNG outside the nomination. Also, if you didn't want me to answer, why "butt in"? (That's not rhetorical. I'm honestly asking). Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please support this claim with reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from WP:BADGERing the !voters, Sir Sputnik. Kraxler (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources are match reports, which are routine coverage insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite mistaken, Sir Sputnik. The first source says "Anicic signed contract with Astana" and gives a resume of his career, mentioning 10 games in qualifying matches for the Europa League and 2 games in qualiyfying matches for the Champions League, and has a picture of the player. The second source is an announcement, made a few weeks before, that Anicic is coming to Astana, and mentions also 18 games with the Bosnian youth national team, and has an image of the player. The third source says that he signed a contract with Metallurh Donetsk, in June 2010, and talks about the circumstances, and has a little image of the player. The fourth source is in-depth about Marincic's play at some game with two pictures of the player. There's not a single "match report" there, absolutely none, Sir Sputnik. That's a question of fact, not opinion. Kraxler (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I guess that's what you get for trusting your skills in a language you don't speak. That being said, my previous comment still stands. Though I mistook one sort of routine coverage for another, this is still routine coverage insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is, and what is not, routine coverage, that's a question of interpretation and judgment, so there will be differing opinions about that. We'll have to live with that. By the way, his club qualified for the European championships, they will either play in the Champions or the Europa League, it depends whether they win or lose the next game. So we will hear more of Anicic soon. Kraxler (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The various special notability guidelines, NFOOTY included, live in tension with our general notability guideline. When the subject notability guidelines and general notability guidelines give different results, the community tends to weight one or the other differently depending on which subject notability guideline we are considering, but both are pretty much always in play in various degree.
In this instance, NFOOTY gives a plainly ambiguous result. Having looked to the April discussion at WT:NFOOTY, I find that while there was a consensus to remove the League from the FPL, I do not see that there is a consensus about whether the league is or isn't fully-professional, it is instead simply so far unverified either way. We don't know.
I'm left with the view that any argument based on NFOOTY here is pretty weak, and I have weighted NFOOTY arguments in general here quite weakly. In addition, SNGs in general and NFOOTY in particular is usually, as a matter of textual interpretation, treated as putting the burden of proof on those wishing to show notability via the criteria, which further reduced the weight of keep arguments based on NFOOTY.
Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there's a lot of complaining here about WP:FPL criteria being unfair or poorly defined - all probably true, but how does this further the discussion? We've discussed Khazakstan at length before. It always seems likely it is fully-professional, but the evidence remains elusive. All we really need is one good reference. A simple reference to what the minimum league salary is would probably do it - is this so difficult to find? Nfitz (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may be in Cyrillic script, and then it's really difficult, yes. "Poorly defined" is the word and, I would add, even more poorly followed by the users who established it. It seems there's no answer to a question that arose some time ago: Vyacheslav Seletskiy played 13 games in one of the leagues listed at WP:FPL, and was deemed wanting. So why is the league listed if it doesn't count, or how many games do you need? Kraxler (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cryllic is fine. Heck, it could be in Klingon if it's a reliable source. What's are the leagues rules about minimum salaries. Irrelevant for this player as he meets WP:GNG - but it would be useful to stop these endless debates about players in this league. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, Astana qualified for playing either in the Champions or the Europa League, we'll hear more of Anicic, much more. Kraxler (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Long established that that's only good if BOTH teams playing in the competitions are fully-professional AND listed on WP:FPL. But for players on leagues that are borderline fully-professional it's normally not difficult to find sources, such as above, demonstrating WP:GNG and making WP:NFOOTBALL irrelevant.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marin_Aničić&oldid=1136671688"