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. MBisanz ^talk 07:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milos Kocic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No appearance in professional competition so does not meet WP:ATHLETE, no evidence of substantial coverage to otherwise meet WP:BIO. Kevin McE (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He played in the 2009 adidas Major League Soccer player combine. This is a professional competition. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interzil (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MLS Player combine is not a professional competition: it is a series of trial games for college players hoping to gain the attention of a professional club: none of the players in it have professional contracts at the time of playing. Kevin McE (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep He has not played yet, but was recently drafted in the second round in the MLS draft. Since he was drafted so high, it is almost certain he will compete in the league, therefore meeting wp:athlete. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Interesting that you link to WP:CRYSTAL when you say that it's "almost certain". There's nothing "certain" about it, it's absolutely crystalballing. As it stands right now, he has not played, and does not meet WP:ATHLETE. When he meets the criteria, then he can always be re-added, but for now he does not meet the requirements. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until he plays in a fully professional league. There are so many youth and reserve-team players across the globe who you'd assume would play for their clubs at some point; take a look at some of Arsene Wenger's recruits, those playing for the AC Milan reserves and that's just two clubs playing at the highest level of world football. If and when he plays, then fine, but until then he meets none of our notability guidelines. – Toon^(talk) 23:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He played professionally for both the u19 and u21 Serbian national teams. ^[1] 144.126.196.141 (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the context of football/soccer/footy/association football, consensus is that only full internationals, not underage representative teams, confer notability. It is unclear what the anonymous editor means by sying he played "professionally" for these sides. Kevin McE (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't need to be professional to play at this level. There are so many players who are in u-17 and u-21 teams but do not go on to play in a fully professional leage for their clubs or at all for their countries and the youth tournaments get so little coverage, they can't be taken as an indicator of notability. – Toon^(talk) 11:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He did play professionally before he played college ball. He played for the Serbian club FK Dubočica. He then went to St. John's university but was forced to red shirt his freshman year because of his involvement with FK Dubočica and in the end transfered to Loyola.Interzil (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)^[2][reply]

That club play in Serbian League East, which does not meet the stipulation of a fully professional division at national level. Maybe they were at a higher level when he played for them, but that would be for those claiming that playing for Dubočica confers notability to establish. Kevin McE (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He meets WP:N because of news coverage, 1. No problem with notability when you are the Second Team All-American in 2008, All-MAAC First Team, and a school-record of 17 shutouts 2. He is very close to meeting WP:ATHLETE.--J.Mundo (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and records in a division that does not confer notability cannot confer notability. "Of all that group of players who have not played at a high enough level to be notable, he was regarded the best" Kevin McE (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument to keep is based on general notability guidelines WP:N, because of extensive news coverage from reliable sources. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we can prove that he did things that we do not regard as notable. Can we prove that he has done anything that we DO consider notable? There are plenty of references and google hits for people who are not considered notable. Kevin McE (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that reliable sources are available to establish the notability of the subject. It's a matter of opinion if you consider his actions non-notable. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If your argument is based upon the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage from reliable sources, can you provide a link to actual articles that cover the subject in-depth? I found this award one, which on its own isn't sufficient for me; the only other one which covered him was a University newspaper. Any other mentions are just that; trivial mentions. If you can link me to some articles which cover the subject, I'll happily change to a keep per WP:N. Best, – Toon^(talk) 19:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - Article fails WP:ATHLETE, but the sources appear to satisfy WP:BIO. I don't think star college soccer players are notable, but the media in the United States gives them sufficient coverage to pass the WP guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete - After further consideration, I believe very few of the sources are secondary and those do not appear to provide non-trivial coverage. Accordingly, articles fails WP:N, in addition to failing WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Keeping this player will set a precedent for the unchecked creation of articles on hundreds and hundreds of amateur soccer players. Kocic fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE per the WP:FOOTY guidelines; recreate article if and when he makes his professional debut.--JonBroxton (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question There was a French wikipedia article written for Kocic two years ago. Any French speaking editors that can explain why this article has remained for two years without being deleted?Interzil (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction My mistake, that article was written four years ago. My question still remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interzil (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Same argument comes up every year. Save the trouble keep the article. He'll make an appearance in a couple months anyway. Minfo (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Evidence. This shows his involvement with the club. He technically is on the roster of a professional team, therefore making him a professional athlete. http://dcunited.mlsnet.com/players/bio.jsp?team=t103&player=kocic_m&playerId=koc310136&statType=current http://dcunited.mlsnet.com/players/roster.jsp?club=t103 Interzil (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote By deleting this article, what are you guys trying to prove? If by some miracle Kocic quits football right this second, and hangs up his cleats for good, is he not still a part of history? Notability is indeed a very grey area, but there are many reasons for why someone is notable. You could look at this situation as such: the boy matched the school's unbeaten shutout record formerly held by Zach Thornton, a heavily decorated American goal tender at a very strong football instituion, or at least strong the United States. If he were to quit, wouldn't that make him an oddity or something worth citing in a historic piece of literature? If he were to continue playing football and fail to play for either his national team or any professional team then delete away. But with evidence comes responsibility, and all the delete happy people of wikipedia, know that you are a destroyer rather than a keeper. Instead of trying to make better of a situation or fact, you just purge the world of all its iniquities. You truly are a special bunch. Interzil (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I !voted keep, I don't think this is a fair analogy. Zach Thornton is well-known for his play on professional clubs and for the US national football team, not for his achievements in college soccer. I'm suspect that locals or alumni will remember his exploits in college, but we are looking for more than just regional coverage. The reason I !voted keep was because there appears to be a good enough number of national sources discussing Kocic's accomplishments. Jogurney (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody's trying to prove anything, there's no need to insult anybody, it is only an encyclopaedia, this isn't an attack on anything. The problem is, when you allow articles on people who aren't notable, nobody maintains them, they become out of date because the information on them just isn't available. Surely you agree that there have to be limits on who is worthy of an article? Why are these players more notable than ones who play for the AC Milan or Real Madrid reserves? Clearly many of those players are better than those drafted in the US; that means that there needs to be a good amount of coverage if the guy hasn't even played in a league game in the country in which his sport takes 4th place in the pecking order. – Toon^(talk) 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly meets WP:N Nfitz (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How clearly? Let's consider those sources. The refs on the page are to his college teams own site, a note that he has signed (signing does not confer notability in professional sports, playing does) on his new teams news page, and a list of draftees. The first two pages on the google news hits referred to by J Mundo were either in a foreign language or were match reports of games played at a non-notable level. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is on the roster of a professional football team, what more do you want? The reason his former college and current team are referenced is because they are the clearest showing of his statistics. Also, Kocic is not a reserve. The MLS did away with their reserve program this year. He is a professionally paid athlete, in a top tier American league. There are plenty of articles on minor league baseball players, I don't think keeping this article is harming Wikipedia. Also, he can't play in a professional competition now because the MLS is out of season. Interzil (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....in which case the article should not have been created until the MLS is in season and he has played. Many many articles on players who are on the roster of pro teams but have not played (e.g. this one and this one) have been deleted at AfD, I see no reason why MLS players should be treated any differently to the rest of the world -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop looking at what is fair and what isn't fair, there is no law to Wikipedia that has gained credit without challenging it. Wikipedia is an encyclical device, used by many people for many different reasons. Putting players that have been signed to professional teams puts more available content on the site. His name is on the roster both on their website and on their Wikipedia entry D.C. United. By writing an article about someone mentioned in an article is expanding the reader's view and thus expanding the possibilities and content. All the sites references are legitimate. This article does not have an overwhelming amount of content. It shows his accolades in college, his stats, where he came from, and a bit about what he is doing now. This information can be useful in many ways. Let's say you are a die-hard United fan and you plan on attending their training camp in Florida this month. You see there is a 6'4" Serbian goaltender in the ranks and someone asks "hey who is this guy?" BAM! A glorious wikipedia moment will suddenly ensue, rendering any confusion. I'm also sure there are a ton of Loyola alum and students who will be interested in this article. This boy has done some great things, and they should be available for anyone who would like to see them. Interzil (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if Kocic never plays a game for DC? Look at the example of Charles Alamo - a goalkeeper who was a decent stopper in college, got drafted by Galaxy last year, and blew out his ACL in pre-season. I have heard that he will retire soon due to this injury. Would you consider Alamo worthy of an article? He's a college keeper who got drafted but never played a professional game - exactly the same as Kocic right now. You cannot say with 100% certainty that Kocic WILL play a game, because we just don't know - that would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Kocic could turn up to training today and break his leg in a freak training ground accident that ends his career. In which case he will be just a college keeper who never played professionally. Or he might not; he might go on to become a great keeper for DC and the the Serbian national team. But - AS OF RIGHT NOW - he is non-notable because HE HAS NOT PLAYED A PROFESSIONAL GAME. As soon as he pulls on his jersey and takes his place between the pipes in an MLS or USOC game (or in another professional league), that's when the notability requirements for the article kicks in. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather read an article about 'Charles Alamo' than just hear about him. That sounds pretty nuts, but I can't believe you because there is no article backing you up. Maybe if someone had taken the time to write an article about Alamo, your argument would be worthwhile. I guess we'll never know. Regarding Kocic, if he steps on the field right now as I type this and slips on a ball and breaks his neck, feel free to delete away. We can actually have a delete party and all hold hands as we press the magical delete key. Wouldn't that be so much fun? Wouldn't it prove the worthiness of all the great Wikipedians across the globe? These are his stats, where he came from, and what he does. He is a notable person for some and not for others. Interzil (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of this discussion is to "prove the worthiness of all the great Wikipedians across the globe" - it's about maintaining adherence to policy, keeping control of the footy articles, and having minimum standards for what kinds of players do or do not deserve articles. Whining and being melodramatic and sarcastic to make a point is hardly going to make your case stronger. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And using all caps to try and make your point more appealing does work? Look, it is not a matter of who "deserves" and article or not. It is a matter of what information can be proven, cited, and stated in an encyclical format. Maybe people look at Kocic more in a biographical sense than in a athletic sense? This article is very much "under control." Since Kocic is not a reserve player than what does it make him? He certainly is not a collegiate footballer, he has already committed to a professional level team and thus revoked his NCAA eligibility. Everyone who knows professional football well, knows it is a huge gamble. But the truth is, the boy worked his way up, and made a name for himself. National news is paying attention to him, and you can be sure if at any point in time his career ends, there will be an article to go along with it and in which case his retirement will not be a mystery, but recorded historically as it should be. Interzil (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You state that it'snot a case of who "deserves" an article, and then go on to argue that he should have one because of the huge gamble he has made, and that he's worked his way up to (merely) signing for a professional clud, finisheing about how his achievement should be recorded historically. That's pretty much arguing that he deserves an article. – Toon^(talk) 22:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using caps is a way of adding discursive emphasis to a sentance, in the same way you used bold face. Stop changing the subject. The bottom line is this: it doesn't matter who he is, where he comes from, what sacrifices he has made, and what roster he is on. If he has PLAYED in a league or cup game for a professional club in any country in the world, or has played in a FIFA-sanctioned senior international (not U-19 or any other youth team), then he is eligible for an article. Until either of those things happen, he is not. They are the only requirements. Once he sets foot on the field for DC United in an MLS or USOC game, you can create away. Write about his long, hard struggle to the top, his college career, and whatever else is of note, because he will then be a PROFESSIONAL PLAYER who has met the criteria for inclusion. However, until he sets foot on the field, he does not meet the criteria. It's really that simple. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO 'nuff said. Interzil (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N. Got any more? --JonBroxton (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....also, as there appear to be no reliable independent third-party sources which offer in-depth coverage of him, I'd dispute that he passes WP:BIO anyway...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - none of the links in the article are in any way independent. If he ever makes a professional appearance, then re-instate but for now he fails to meet notability guidelines. - fchd (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no play at a professional level, and no evidence that player has been the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable independent sources, so fails all policies. See Steve Vale for proof that merely being a hot prospect and signed by a pro club does not guarantee that a pro career will automatically follow..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't quite understand what makes this article particularly notbale. The subject fails WP:ATHLETE as having not made an appearance in a fully pro league, and I don't think it passes WP:N with the current sources used. A Google search doesn't seem to find much either. Mattythewhite (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - feel free to recreate it in case he actually manages to play a game in a fully professional league. --Angelo (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This guy is apparently notable for being a footballer, yet he has never actually played in a professional league. Restore if/when he does. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until he's done something that makes him notable. --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A draft pick third-choice goalkeeper who has yet to make an appearance at a fully professional level, therefore he has not acheived anything of note in football and fails WP:ATHLETE. Most of the Google News hits provided by J.Mundo are fleeting mentions in match reports, and while the second source would count as substantial coverage, this is only a start. Three out of the four references provided in the article itself are from primary sources (two from his college, one from his club) and the fourth ref is from the official MLS website, so I'm not sure whether that would count as a secondary source. All in all, he also fails WP:N and WP:BIO, so delete this article for now, then recreate it if and when he makes his pro-league debut. Bettia (rawr!) 14:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I notice that in what appears to be a "desperation edit", the article now states "He is officially on the 2009 pre-season roster, this verifies that he will participate in the game against the Columbus Crew on February 10". This isn't true at all, there is no guarantee he will play in that game. Compare and contrast Tayler Thomas, who was signed to a professional contract by Gillingham at the start of this season but has yet to see even one nano-second of game time (and as a result has never had a WP article). This is especially true in Kocic's case given that DC United have three other keepers in their squad. Why would they guarantee game time to a rookie in their important first match of the season over the experienced Zach Wells? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not verifiably notable in the scheme of things as a footballer. Has not played notably (professional league, senior international or Olympics) and not won any notable awards. Ref 1 only gives minimal profile data (height, DOB, POB and position), Ref 2 only gives some college football bio - non notable amatuer stuff, Ref 3 only give fact that he was selected 21 in draft - not notable in itself, Ref4 only states he wil ltrain with tthe squad pre-season and whilst it claims to be from the Washington Post, is actually only from a blog on the Washington Post site (WP:RS issues), Ref 5 innocuously claiming to be from The Greyhound is merely his school's student newspaper. There were a couple of other refs, now removed as they either didn't back up any claim made in the article, or in one case completely failed to mention Kocic. Someone is trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes. --ClubOranje^Talk 09:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Serbian League East is a professional league. He played for FK Dubocica Leskovac, which is why he redshirted his first season at St. John's. Though the Serbian league east isn't the top league in the country, its still professional. Interzil (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serbian League East is not fully professional (fully pro = all clubs are pro, none semi-pro or amateur). Only the Serbian Superliga is fully pro league in Serbia. – Toon^(talk) 16:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you can find a reliable citation that the third level of Serbian football is fully professional, then you're there, and the article will pass. I still don't think he would notable without the third-party coverage, but that's how things work. - fchd (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. If you can provide evidence that Serbian League East is a fully pro league, and provide a link that confirms that Kocic played at least 1 game for FK Dubocica Leskovac, then he immediately passes WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N, and the article should be kept. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And WP:N should be ignored? Mattythewhite (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:N is just the general notability guideline. There are more specific guidelines for lots of things, and WP:BIO (which contains the WP:ATHLETE guideline) is that for footballers. It's all moot anyway, as the third tier of Serbian football is not fully pro. – Toon^(talk) 17:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does it say he played for FK Dubocica Leskovac? other than his (unverified) article? http://www.zerozero.pt doesn't have him.--ClubOranje^Talk 19:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://web.mlsnet.com/mls/events/superdraft/2009/draft_tracker.jsp Interzil (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean he actually PLAYED for them, or was just a part of their youth system? The guy was born in Leskovac. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know if this helps or not, but he also played for FK Radnicki Jugopetrol (changed name from FK Radnicki Belgrade) [2] Interzil (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (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.