Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nizar Jomaa Gresh

: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. (X! · talk) · @060 · 00:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Nizar Jomaa Gresh]]=

:{{la|Nizar Jomaa Gresh}} ([{{fullurl:Nizar Jomaa Gresh|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nizar Jomaa Gresh}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

No evidence that he passes WP:ATHLETE, a Google search yields nothing Spiderone (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per GiantSnowman BigDom (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Plays unknown times in the Libyan Premier League, the highest division of Libyan football championship. The league and the clubs are notable, so the players are notable too. --Ilion2 (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Just because a league or club is notable doesn't mean the players are notable. See Sutton United. Spiderone (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Just opinion? Show me the rule for this. Tell me the reasons for this. Are films notable and actors not? No. --Ilion2 (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nizar Jomaa Gresh||}}

Delete as it cannot be verified that the subject has played at the highest level, either in a fully professional league thus not meeting the inclusion criterion for athletes or at international level. He also does not meet the primary inclusion criterion of having received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2009 (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.