Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Michael Maigeri Ede

As per Gartuwaso, I agree in same line of reasoning and understanding. According to Wikipedia: “Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives” This subject is notable with verifiable references. That most of you aren’t able to substantiate his notability doesn’t make the article lack in-depth independent coverage.
 * Make your argument at the AFD - but this isn't a historical subject and he doesn't have coverage, but nice try. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Michael Maigeri Ede
As per Gartuwaso, I agree in same line of reasoning and understanding. According to Wikipedia: “Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives” This subject is notable with verifiable references. That most of you aren’t able to substantiate his notability doesn’t make the article lack in-depth independent coverage. 111.119.177.11 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a nice echo chamber we've got going on this talk page, isn't it? 🧦🧦🧦🧦🧦🧦 PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Michael Maigeri Ede
Subject notable and as per Katobara, he represents notable and GNG Wikipedia verifiable footballers 111.119.177.11 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Michael Maigeri Ede
Keep: saying article subject is not notable and doesn’t pass WP: GNG has not been proven beyond any reasonable doubts here. Google searches returns reliable sources Ahsankhan787 (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)