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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Hamidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep From what I have read on the talk page of the nominator, the user has mass nominated articles for deletion within a short amount of time and the nominations seem to be in bad faith. Fats40boy11 (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are a couple of sources that he played as Team Afghanistan goal keeper. See here In Persian [[1]]; [[2]]; and In English [[3]]; [[4]] Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per NemesisAT, Fats40boy11, and Jawad Haqbeen. In addition, he is a international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources linked above are deprecated (Sputnik News), a routine transactional announcement where he is mentioned in a list of names, and two sports stats databases. These are not remotely close to meeting GNG. Fats40boy11, a high rate of nominations isn't a valid speedy keep rationale as there is no policy- or guideline-based requirement for BEFORE and anyway we can't discern whether the nom actually did check for sources for each article beforehand. What matters here is whether the subject meets GNG, and from the sources provided above that seems to be a resounding no. JoelleJay (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @JoelleJay. I didn’t give a speedy keep, I gave a weak keep. That being said, I didn’t explain myself fully. To be clear, I agree with Das Osmnezz and Jawad Haqbeen. I also agreed with the point Nemesis made, and also raised it this point. However, I gave it a ‘weak keep’ at the time, and will stick with this or draftify. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fats40boy11, but what does the rate of nominations have to do with whether this article subject is notable? There is nothing in our current rules prohibiting making many noms, so objecting to that wouldn't be considered a valid keep reason by closers. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did personally give a ‘weak keep’, but as said above I didn’t explain myself fully at the time. As per JoelleJay, I agree that there are questions about whether the subject is notable, but I am in a way sat on the fence regarding this article. Are there any other reliable sources out there that we could find and use? If so, please leave them below. That being said, I’m leaning to the article being draftified. Any future contributions, or lack of, will have a strong influence on my decision, but there is no question that the article needs significant expansion should there be sources out there. However, we can’t keep articles if the sourcing is not good enough. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Vacating my closure of no consensus and relisting for further input or an admin closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude talk 04:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep goalie of a national football team. KSAWikipedian (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:DINC KSAWikipedian (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is a valid keep rationale. JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My own search for "فیصل حمیدی" returned little beyond what was mentioned by the other !voter above: mentions in routine transactional announcements and stats databases. Right now there is exactly one keep !vote that makes any type of P&G-based argument, which is certainly not sufficient for retaining the article and especially not when it is situated around non-GNG sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My previous comment said any future contributions, or lack of, will have a strong influence on my decision. As I have not found reliable sources that are sufficient in keeping the article, and other users have not found anything since my comment, I have thought carefully about my !vote for a considerable amount of time. As per JoelleJay, the sources above in this AFD are not sufficient in retaining the article. I did also lean toward draftify in my previous comment, but nobody has convinced me that sources may be out there and may just be difficult to find, hence why I have come to my conclusion. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:37, 20 August 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.