Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazma


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Nazma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No full international appearances and lack of in-depth coverage required for WP:GNG. As she is only 12 years old, this is possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Spiderone 13:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  13:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete She is a youth football player and certainly does not meet the criteria laid out in WP:NFOOTY. The u-14 and u-17 women's team of Bangladesh is certainly only very niche. She was in the team when it had some regional success in Asia and thats it. She actually seem to be one of the lesser known players of the team, and they are all not very notable. Unlike the other players, not even her full name is known apparently. All the sources just give her nickname. There are no RS which cover her independently or significantly and she fails WP:GNG outright. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - per this recent AfD. please be more careful with your closures. This was a complicated AfD, but there was clear consensus that Nazma met neither GNG nor NFOOTY, despite a number of her teammates doing so. Fenix down (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , if you look better, it was a procedural keep as to better deal with a mass nomination which was going nowhere. A keep close was requested by the same nominator as well as by several editors as to re-nominate/discuss individually several articles part of that AfD. The keep close was merely technical and there was no judgment on the merits. Cavarrone  16:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At no point was that clear in your closing summary. Your statement confirms the outcome of the AfD was to keep all. Furthermore, the mass nomination was not going nowhere, there was clear consensus which players were notable through GNG, which through NFOOTY and which through neither. Regardless of what you thought you were doing, your close has had the effect of creating a judgement on the merits of the discussion. the correct course of action would have been to leave things alone, and let an admin delete the non-notable pages to save having this repetitive discussion. Fenix down (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the full discussion, starting from the first sentence after the striked rationale ("Please close so that I can renominate the non-notable ones as individual AfDs") to the last sentence ("Keep, re-nominate individually as previously mentioned"), and you'll find the responses to your concerns. You'll find the same sort of keep closures in dozens of not-unanimous mass nominations, I assume any neutral reader can easily understand how and why the AfD was closed as keep... you are just a bit too emotionally involved and you're reading the AfD in a wrong way. If you have further problems with the closuse, the proper venue is WP:DRV. Cavarrone 18:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so you're totally missing the point here. The point is that three AfDs have now been started creating needless bureaucracy because you decided to close a discussion that would have been more effectively dealt with by someone who could delete the non-notable articles and keep those that there was consensus to keep, especially as further discussion took place following the sole request for a procedural close which clearly indicated at least one of the players nominated was notable per WP:NFOOTY. Myself, other editors and no doubt more still, now have to come in and make exactly the same arguments that they made previously but three times over. Fenix down (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Since she has not played in a fully pro league or in a senior international match, this article fails WP:NSPORT, nor has she received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2016 (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.