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. The only reliable secondary source significantly covering Elfath that has been presented here is this one from the Austin American-Statesman (the other source presented by Nfitz, from almarssadpro is a primary source, as it is an interview, and per policy cannot be used to establish notability). That one source alone does not pass the requirements of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Therefore, the article's subject is found to not be currently notable. (Note: This close does not hold prejudice against the article being re-created if other reliable secondary sources cover the subject in the future.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Elfath[edit]

Ismail Elfath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hasn't played or managed in a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article clearly has had significant coverage, see here, here and here. Subject is also an obvious professional in a professional domestic league, see see here. As the subject of this article has also refereed over 4 leagues (all professional), as well as substantial coverage, this article should not be deleted. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm withholding my !vote for the time being. Current consensus is that referees are not automatically notable, so the professional status of a referee is moot and WP:GNG must be met. I must disregard the second source provided by Inter&anthro because it is a forum and not a reliable source. However, I do agree that this referee is somewhat controversial, as shown by the first and third sources provided. I'm not yet convinced that GNG has been met, but that doesn't mean that there isn't more out there. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. The three sources that Inter&anthro provides are an news piece by the LA Galaxy criticising him, a forum, and a non-RS. Not enough for GNG. GiantSnowman 18:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What is the consensus about this? I thought referees who do officiate in fully-pro leagues do count as notable? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now perhaps if there's nothing for a better notable article and I would've also accepted redirecting if needed. SwisterTwister talk 08:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I have found nothing to establish independent notability of this subject. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in addition to the more routine references above, Elfath has also received in-depth international coverage in features such as [1], and [2]. The second is in Arabic, and the title is translated at "Exclusive Interview: Morrocan Referee Ismail Elfath opens his heart to almarssadpro". Nfitz (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG JMHamo (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing in searches to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If there cannot be a clear consensus here, I would immensely appreciate if this was relisted thrice. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 28 January 2016 (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.