Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damir Dokić

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. ✗plicit 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Dokić

[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)

Runs contrary to WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:BIOFAMILY. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Damir Dokic was significantly notable (particularly in Australia) during his daughter's tennis career, and was frequently featured in the media himself. There are plenty of independent sources conferring notability so he meets WP:BIO himself. This should be a no-brainer for keeping the article. Deus et lex (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that this a case of WP:SNOW, as you seem to imply. If this individual wasn't a famous tennis player's hell-raising parent, he would just be another person making a ruckus on the street. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that there is enough information in the article to make it warrant a stand-alone article rather than simply a section of Jelena's article. I also think that the sources show more than just a trivial mention of Damir, so WP:GNG would appear to be met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The depth and breadth of coverage is irrelevant if the only reason for his notability is the fact he was the parent of a notable athlete. If this wasn't the case, no one would care, and there wouldn't be articles written about him. I'm not sure threatening a diplomat with a hand grenade meets WP:CRIMINAL either. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the depth and breadth of coverage relates to, the question is whether he has received substantial and independent coverage himself (and the answer to that is very clearly yes). You need to stop implying extra requirements into Wikipedia policy. WP:BIO is very clearly met here. Deus et lex (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is one of those borderline articles. Is he notable for anything tennis related... no. Hence this article has no WikiProject Tennis tag on the talk page. However, people can certainly meet GNG by being in the press enough. It looks like Damir Dokic has done so minimally. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this isn't a marginal case of WP:BLP1E or inherited notability. His antics were covered as events distinct from whatever his daughter was doing at the time. Yes, oftentimes those events converged because he attracted more attention when his actions were directed toward his much more famous daughter. He's not some run-of-the-mill Dance-Mom-style "celebrity parent", and the coverage he received (including that beyond the point where she had not much to do with him) is enough. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG in his own right. Most of the current references are IRS sources, and there would undoubtedly be more. Cabrils (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG Nitesh003 (TALK) 03:43, 31 August 2021 (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.