Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ljubomir Vračarević

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. Sandstein 07:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ljubomir Vračarević

Delete: Totally fake. Unproven ranks, self published material. Generally considered as a charlatan in Martial Arts community. Not worthy for WP:BIO.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Champagne82 (talk • contribs) 2010/11/26 10:06:13

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he's "fake" and "charlatan", he is rather famously so; if you have proofs otherwise, please bring them forward. I remember seeing the man several times on TV, and there are plenty of news stories about him: Radio Television of Serbia announcement, Večernje Novosti [1], Blic [2], Press (newspaper) [3] JAT revija ([4]). The article is a piece of puffery indeed, so feel free to prune it down to citable stuff, but he certainly passes notability criteria. No such user (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken the liberty to prune everything that was tagged for citation, apparently since 2007. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the subject is "generally considered" as anything then that would imply that he is notable, as general consideration implies that he is covered by sources about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My thoughts exactly. Yet, the concerns of WP:ANYBIO and WP:NSPORT may still apply. Seems to me - if this real aikido is a notable sport, its founder is notable, and vice versa. The references in the article are so-so. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found no sources in English, but he seems to have enough coverage in his own country to pass notability criteria. I'd say he passes WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2010 (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.