Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daša Radosavljević
Appearance
- 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. Michig (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Daša Radosavljević
- Daša Radosavljević (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)
Fails
WP:GNG. No independent sources given. The Banner talk 14:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. According to No such user (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)]
- They will be treated the same: all have to show notability supported by reliable sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 15:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)]
- They will be treated the same: all have to show notability supported by reliable sources conform
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as no evidence of notability fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 15:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I've added a reference to the text in respectable Politika ([3]) which prominently covers Radosavljević. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This article subject has significant coverage in the Politica reference here [4], and also coverage at [5]. WordSeventeen (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)]
- Delete. Now that I think about it, it's a classic case of No such user (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 14 March 2015 (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.