Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Jalil (badminton) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Abdul Jalil (badminton)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Was nominated for deletion earlier this year but the points made in the discussion are false. #5 in WP:NBADMINTON states "Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics." Afghanistan has never competed in the sport at the Olympics. There is also a lack of GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete there is a failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple national champion, major person in Afghanistan badminton. Florentyna (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So what? @Florentyna. The article fails WP:NBADMINTON and WP:GNG, both policies which are used to determine if a subject is notable. In this case failing both most likely indicates the subject is not-notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The requirement that someone can only be notable in a sport if their country regularly sends people to the olympics is a great example of systemic bias, not only privileging the Olympics as though it was an independent objective measure, but also privileging countries who are wealthy enough to send multiple competitors there.Egaoblai (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @Egaoblai The reason why the article was saved last time was because it was erroneously pointed out that it met point #5 of WP:NBADMINTON (it doesn't). It fails all other parts of WP:NBADMINTON and WP:GNG, so there really isn't any grounds to keeping the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Sportsfan 1234 And I'm pointing out why this is a failure of WP to address systemic bias. Here we have a multiple national champion who is being called non notable because his country doesn't send people to the olympics, an utterly bizarre rationale for exclusion on an encyclopedia that purports to be for quality. As I pointed out this is systemic bias against poorer countries and also discriminatory against badminton, as it makes the inclusion of a badminton article subject to the whims of the olympic committees in the country. What you are advocating for is a system of inclusion where the sources and the facts remain the same, but we must wait for a group of people sitting in a room with a budget list in order to add this to the encylopedia, despite the article already being created. A very strange situation indeed. I'm more interested in adding quality, sourced information to the encylopedia than rigidly following rules that uphold bias. Egaoblai (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete References are terrible, not to mention the article quality is atrocious. Does not meet notability.  Nik ol ai Ho ☎️ 04:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails both NBadminton, and GNG. There is no systemic bias as opined earlier, the standards that have been set are designed to limit athletes passing who are expected to pass GNG.  It is not an issue of what is fair, but what we expect there to be coverage of.  If editors wish to make a case for a bias, or inclusion, they need to provide valid sources that meet GNG.  Or present why those currently passing the sport specific quideline should not pass.18abruce (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Looks like the page creator is the subject in question. I am honestly surprised this article has 'survived' this long. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If true, this should be reported as COI.  Nik ol ai Ho ☎️ 04:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NBADMINTON, WP:GNG - Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Moreover I found insufficient neutral reliable sources, and as such it fails WP:GNG. Argument by Egaoblai above does not work. WP:NBADMINTON gives reasons for exceptions to WP:GNG, cases in which an article most likely will meet WP:GNG and it is nt needed to investigate. However any article that fails WP:NBADMINTON can still meet WP:GNG. Any article that can pass WP:GNG can stay. As such a subject does not need to be from a country with any reference to the olympics, and there is no bias. The article at hand however does not meet WP:GNG. As such it should be deleted. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2017 (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.