Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stambolziev (2nd nomination)
In my view, Luxic is absolutely right. We have to remember that both  and  are ''guidelines'' that give rise to ''presumptions'', not guarantees of notability. With that in mind, neither "trumps" the other. This person clearly fails , which is the community's most generous inclusion criterion.  On the other hand, his case on GNG is marginal at best - the sources appear provide isolated sports news coverage of events in his career rather than in depth biographical material. So in my view any presumption caused by the subject meeting the GNG - which is weak - is outweighed by his clear failure to meet the objective criteria of . Only with this approach can we mitigate the randomness and unpredictability of the GNG with sensible objective standards of notability.  At the end of the day, notability is about being "worthy of note", and it is only in special cases that a non-professional footballer in England is likely to be worthy of note
— User:Mkativerata, 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:ATH||WP:GNG||WP:ATH (Wikipedia:Notability)