Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulaiman Hazazi

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaiman Hazazi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Prod removed on the basis that editor would prefer this to go through AfD. Deletion is uncontroversial because article has zero references to substantial secondary source coverage, therefore failing WP:SPORTCRIT #5. I'll add that I didn't find any. agtx 21:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Saudi Arabia. agtx 21:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a bunch of results in arabic, the best I could find were [1] [2] [3] and [4], not sure if its enough for a GNG pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any other area, this would not be close enough to meet WP:GNG. This is a handful of routine annoucements/press release style coverage, plus a single Q&A style interview. I fundamentally don't understand why that's considered enough coverage for a football player. agtx 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, tons of reference when you search his name spellt in Arabic. Some references listed here 1, 2, 3, 4. Article should be expanded.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ortizesp. Giant Snowman 13:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: GNG possibly / probably met bit minimal discussion. No harm extending to try to get a clearer consensus one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first two references found by Ortizesp seem in particular to be SIGCOV. EternalNomad (talk) 06:09, 31 May 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.