Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obied Menwer

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obied Menwer

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

Contested PROD that player might meet GNG. Has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY first off. this, this and this were provided as evidence of GNG. All of which are very short articles / pen pics which provided no evidence of significant coverage from reliable sources, nor are any of them utilised in the article. Still therefore fails WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG with numerous significant coverage. Here are a small fraction: [1] [2] [3] [4] Nfitz (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails WP:GNG. routine coverage is not enough. JMHamo (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not dependable references in this article. They don't even appear to exist.Whitescorp34 (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2014 (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.