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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kristiyan Stoyanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No indication anything has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristiyan Stoyanov and no substantive improvements while in draft so bringing it back here for further discussion. Star Mississippi 20:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep –I still don't see a reason to delete an article about player that covers WP:TOOSOON. ^{[1][2] [3]} And there is enough refrences to passes both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT, despite having a sportman with simular name, that "made it harder" to look for him.Chris Calvin (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine, but your opinion does not override community consensus and you didn't make any improvements before restoring the article which is disruptive. Star Mississippi 18:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and Bulgaria. Star Mississippi 20:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - on the basis that the previous attempt at drafification did not work. GiantSnowman 11:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GiantSnowman. All sources provided by the previous user are primary. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As the nominator in the original AfD five months ago (and one who was happy to accept draftify to allow editors time to improve the article), I stand by my BEFORE at that time. For a draft to be returned to mainspace with no effort to add qualifying sources is an abuse of the good faith of AfD participants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2025 (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.