Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Babovic (2nd nomination)

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Babovic

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Previous AfD was cut short due to speedy delete but a strong consensus was building for delete, so I am going to send this back to AfD so the process can play out to its conclusion. Safiel (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Babovic MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 00:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Strong Delete This has been deleted several times already, it was deleted by User:Fastily per G4 but restored it for some reason even though it WAS previously nominated for AfD JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I briefly tagged for G4. But then I looked at the deletion log and decided to take to AfD instead. I agree that it DESERVES a speedy delete, but taking it through AfD is a better way of making the delete actually stick. Safiel (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I said before it has been deleted several times before so there is no reason it should need to be AfD'd, actually the time it was deleted during discussion it was because it was under G5, but before that it was deleted per A7 and PROD'd, it should also be noted the creator is a suspected sockpuppet but no investigation has taken place JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not eligible for speedy deletion under G4 - yes it was previously nominated for AFD but it was never deleted through AFD. Giant Snowman 18:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as the first AfD nominator. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY – it's been recreated too many times and it's getting annoying. – Kosm1 fent 07:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - created and deleted multiple times, entirely non-notable. Giant Snowman 18:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still just as unotable as the previous version. Not speediable this time, since the creator is not a sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or football guideline. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2012 (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.