Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nexhmedin Spahiu

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nexhmedin Spahiu[edit]

[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)

Doesn't meet the significant coverage guidelines under WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It does not pass wp:N threshold for certain.07:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep: Was any effort made at WP:BEFORE? If I hit the Google Scholar link above, I get 55 hits, with the first ten being citation references to Spahiu's books - and each of those citation links has several sub-links to the works where he is cited fairly extensively. I don't think the GNG reason for deletion holds water at all. If I need to provide specific examples, please let me know.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Khirurg (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough support to meet the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC.Kolma8 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG, clearly doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR, nor do they pass WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:39, 10 December 2020 (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.