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. So Why 07:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Liban Soleman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this person may be off to a good start in life, there is not enough evidence of notability. Legacypac ( talk) 05:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom as non-notable. -- Lockley ( talk) 05:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep sources available indicate article passes WP:BASIC.-- TM 02:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The sources present in the article are not evincing a GNG or BASIC pass — there's a blurb, a podcast, an article in which he's quoted giving soundbite about something else, and a contextless gallery of photographs — and if there are better sources out there about him which would bolster the case, they ain't exactly showing up in great swarms on my Google. There's certainly a valid potential notability claim here, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this — but there's no notability claim strong enough that mere verification of its truth would be enough in and of itself to exempt him from having to be sourced better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 23:45, 30 June 2017 (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.