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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Hameed[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has been called to the Iraqi national team. This does not make him notable as WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes this scenario. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have numerous media articles discussing him. Which isn't surprising given he's a back-up keeper on the national team, and also is a keeper for one of the biggest teams in the country. Here are a couple of examples [1], [2]. I don't think GNG is an issue - the issue is, that his coverage is entirely in Arabic; however I don't believe that the GNG criteria requires that the coverage be in English. Nfitz (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per WP:GNG, ..."Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Might pass WP:GNG per Nfitz, but as long as the article isn't improved I see no point in keeping a microstub that "might" be notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz linked to coverage that does exist, not that might exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the article then. If stubs were deleted for being stubs we wouldn't have stubs. Nfitz (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on you to evidence notability - YOU fix the article. Giant Snowman 13:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per [3], [4]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:20, 25 July 2012 (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.