Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Dawood Yaseen


 * 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Mohammed Dawood Yaseen
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As with the last AfD, this footballer still has not received significant coverage or played in a fully professional league, meaning the article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

*Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 19:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:ANYBIO and coverage is WP:ROUTINE for a footballer. Club Oranje T 06:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per below sources, meets WP:GNG. Article needs improving to reflect that, though. GiantSnowman 20:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Beyond the sources in the article form the AFC (which is probably too close to the player to avoid being a primary source. The following sources seem to begin to indicate GNG in English language sources and given that I am not able to search Arabic language sources, I would assume from the below that there is also plenty on him in local sources:
 * FIFA - would argue that FIFA are sufficiently far removed from the player not to be PRIMARY (although this is in the article as form the AFC, it seems quite clear it was an interview with FIFA)
 * FourFourTwo - in depth article on the player
 * The Hindu - article of medium length on the player specifically prior to the U17 world cup
 * xtratime.in - article of medium length on the player specifically prior to the U17 world cup
 * Indian Express - article of medium length on the player specifically during the U17 world cup
 * sportstarlive.com - article of medium length on the player specifically during the U17 world cup
 * ghanasoccernet.com - dedicated summary of the player's career to date
 * Guardian - pen pic
 * Would be interested in the opinions of the editors above who have said he does not meet GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per good work by Fenix down.Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - As nominator, per sources listed by Fenix down. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - although some of the sources listed above are duplicative (e.g., the ghanasoccernet piece is a reprint of an article from the-afc.com) or nearly primary sources (AFC and FIFA - while not technically his employer, these organization are closely aligned with the Iraq FA - which is a member of both), it does appear that the GNG can be satisfied here. Jogurney (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - fails WP:NFOOTY but that's irrelevant as subject passes WP:GNG. As Jogurney mentioned in the !vote above some of the citations are not the best but still enough, article needs expansion not deletion. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep With everything I see and that FIFA.com citation, article more than passes GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2017 (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.