Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulam Razool

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. There seems to be a consensus that this article is not close to meeting GNG, so draftification doesn't seem appropriate. However, this article can of course be recreated if circumstances change. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulam Razool

[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)

Article does not have enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show notability. And when I say enough, I mean zero. One is a short blurb from FBC, one is a single line mention, and the other two do not even mention the player. Was tagged, without improvement, then moved to draft. After which it was immediately returned to mainspace without improvement, with the comment, "Article is decent". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - given their age, they're clearly an early-career player, and so there hasn't had the coverage an older play would have. I'd suggest reverting the article to a draft to allow time for further reliable sources to emerge.--IdiotSavant (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to passing WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My searches also turned up no SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject falls far short of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG thresholds. Search doesn’t reveal any indication of notability. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2023 (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.