Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almir Aganovic

=[[Almir Aganovic]]=

:{{la|Almir Aganovic}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Almir Aganovic}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Almir Aganovic}})

BLP unsourced for over 2 years, no reliable secondary sources from which to write a biography. Kevin (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Almir+Aganovic%22 This search] shows (a very small number of) potential non-English sources but I'm unable to read them to check if they qualify and current policy is that unsourced BLPs should not be given the benefit of the doubt. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Unable to find any WP:RS to show WP:BIO. Found mostly wiki-mirrors and nothing new to add. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Very easy to source, and I have done so, right out of google news archive with the help of google translate. Did the nominator even think to look? And not only will sources in any language do for Wikipedia , but if online, they're easier to use than they used to be because Google translate and other translation programs are available to give at least the rough meaning for almost all languages? Not all the older G News archive links still work, but there are is a useful summary at [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fkakanjskiportal.com%2Findex.php%3Fsearchword%3DAlmir%2BAganovic%26option%3Dcom_search%26Itemid%3D] DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep As DGG was able to source and added to the article. I fixed some of the wording but the article is still short and reads poorly. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2010 (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.