Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amos Dadet


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Amos Dadet

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Apparently, he only has appearances in the second tier of Slovenia, so does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. In my searches, I was unable to locate any coverage that would allow for a passing of WP:GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 22:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, not GNG and not NFOOTY.-- Mvqr (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with Spiderone. There is no credible coverage on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpson001 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking this vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete! Fails GNG woefully.  User:Em-mustapha  talk 16:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - Insufficient significant coverage to demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is no criteria met in WP:NFOOTY which would enable inclusion. No other compelling reason to keep. Article is only one line and not able to be expanded using reliable sources as there does not appear to be any. Such-change47 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL.ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: I concur with the nomination. I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject. As such, in light of WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, the consensus has been deletion. GauchoDude (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.