Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajko Dodic

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajko Dodic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a former mayor, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. Full disclosure, I was the original creator of this, back in 2010 when the notability standard for mayors was an automatic "inherent" notability freebie for any mayor of any city whose population surpassed 50,000 -- but that's long since been deprecated, and the inclusion test for a mayor now hinges on how much substance can actually be written and sourced about his mayoralty: specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But in 12 years, absolutely nothing of substance has been added to expand the article from the initial stub at all, and even on a deep database search for at-the-time coverage that wouldn't google well, I mostly just get glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite in coverage of other things rather than substantive or notability-building analysis about his mayoralty -- the strongest source I can find about him was covering him in the context of coming up on stage to play a little bit of guitar when Hollerado played a concert in his city, which is of no enduring significance. I simply haven't been able to find enough coverage to get him back up to the standard that mayors now have to meet, so he can't be exempted from the standards that apply in 2022 just because "mayor who exists" was good enough for the standards that applied in 2010. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2022 (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.